Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 1, 14 and 15 are related and to be discussed together.

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, subsection (1), line 11, after "Welfare" to insert ", Pensions and Miscellaneous Provisions".

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Do we have a quorum? Are we supposed to have one in dealing with legislation such as this?

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is the prerogative and entitlement of the Senator to demand a quorum.

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I absolutely demand a quorum on a matter as essential as this. That there is none is an absolute disgrace.

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Just as we scrutinise properly the cuts to child benefit and the respite care grant, the reduction in the duration of jobseeker's benefit, the abolition of the PRSI-free allowance of ¤127 and other measures in the Bill, we should have an opportunity to scrutinise the cutting of the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance, the back-to-education allowance and the household benefits allowance.

We tabled a number of amendments to section 1 that have, unfortunately, been ruled out of order. Let me refer to them in general terms. On Second Stage yesterday the Minister mentioned the issues of social welfare fraud and overpayments.

We accept those situations need to be dealt with and that we have to rule out whatever fraud is in the system. Whatever mechanisms the Minister would look to put in place, we would seek to support them once they are fair and reasonable. In respect of overpayments, it is not always that somebody is defrauding the system. Overpayments are sometimes made because of genuine mistakes.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator is on amendment No. 1. Although other amendments have been ruled out of order, I will allow the Senator to come back on the section.

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will come back on the section.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are currently dealing with amendments Nos. 1, 14 and 15.

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is fair enough. I will come back to speak on the section if that is better for everybody. However, I again make the point that we contend this Bill is about more than the social welfare cuts. That is why we seek that the Bill be changed to include "Miscellaneous Provisions".

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I believe the Title of the Bill is quite appropriate.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator is filibustering. She does not even know what section she is talking about.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are talking about section 1, amendment No. 1. We are looking at the social welfare provisions in the budget. The Bill is all-encompassing and always includes PRSI and, to the best of my knowledge, it is not unusual that pensions would be referred to as well. I do not see any point to the amendment. The Title of the Bill is most appropriate.

Ivana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree with Senator Healy Eames on the Title. "Social Welfare Bill" is normally the general Title used to describe a Bill of this nature, although, in fairness to Senator Cullinane, there are quite a number of other issues in the Bill, in particular a number of reforming measures. I thank the Minister very much for her commitments last night in response to Second Stage speeches on the Bill in terms of reform and of looking, for example, at the provision of respite care across the country. As Senator Moloney said in her Second Stage speech yesterday-----

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I remind the Senator to stick to the amendment because there will be lots of time on the various sections to deal with issues that were dealt with yesterday. At this early stage, I do not want to get bogged down in what the Minister said yesterday and on a general discussion of the Bill. Senator Cullinane's amendment is very precise. We are dealing with amendments Nos. 1, 14 and 15. In so far as the Senator can, I ask her to adhere to-----

Ivana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will, of course. I was merely referring to the Minister's comments last night as an example of the sort of other measures that are covered by the Bill and the fact, to come back to the issue of the Title, that it could well be referred to as the social welfare law reform Bill, given there is the earlier Social Welfare Law Reform and Pensions Act 2006. There have been some instances where more specific issues were placed in the Title, although, as Senator Healy Eames said in regard to the last two years in particular, we have simply seen "Social Welfare Bill" as the Title, even when a range of other issues are addressed.

It is a good idea that we would debate what is in the Title and it is important we would scrutinise every part of any Bill. I compliment Senator Cullinane on raising the issue of the Title, although "Social Welfare Bill" is understood as a generic, catch-all Title that in fact covers a range of other issues, including the important reforms the Minister is introducing and some of the measures she referred to in her speech last night, such as the audit of provision of respite care places and her commitment to having a debate in this House in the new year on the issue of reforms to child benefit. A number of reforming measures are captured in the Bill also, but I believe they are captured by the general Title of "Social Welfare Bill".

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not propose to accept these amendments. The normal cycle of social welfare legislation involves the enactment of at least two social welfare Bills per year. One Bill is enacted in December each year to give effect to the various social welfare budget measures which are due to take effect from early in the following year. A second Bill is enacted around spring or early summer to give effect to any other social welfare budget measures and to enact a range of other miscellaneous amendments to the social welfare code. In order to distinguish the budget Bill from the spring or early summer Bill, the Bill enacted in December each year to give effect to the main social welfare budget measures is normally entitled the "Social Welfare Bill".

The Department of Social Protection is a very significant Department which will next year spend more than ¤20.2 million providing direct income supports to almost 4 million people in the population, one way or another. "Social welfare" is the title that people use for the receipt of those payments so I do not fully fathom why Senator Cullinane would object to the Title.

With regard to his comments about Sinn Féin's desire for an amnesty, is he proposing that it would be the social welfare and amnesty Bill, to which I would have a grave objection? Since I became Minister, Sinn Féin has been putting forward, for reasons it has never explained, proposals around a social welfare amnesty. I believe people who are paying their PRSI, rather than seeing an amnesty, would like to see in regard to everybody who is required to pay PRSI, who was overpaid or who defrauds the social welfare system, that all of those moneys due to the social welfare system properly would be received so the money can be spent to the benefit of other people who rely on social welfare, in particular, pensioners. I do not understand why the Senator wants the framework of the Bill expanded to include a Sinn Féin amnesty.

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With respect to the Chair, I was ruled out of order for raising the amnesty and was told to speak to the section. The Minister might wait until we get to the section and I will explain why we want an amnesty.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have never heard a serious Sinn Féin explanation of why or for whom-----

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I hope this is not how the debate will be for the rest of the day.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are there people we are not aware of who are in need of a social welfare amnesty? There is ¤350 million in repayments owed to the Department of Social Protection going back quite a number of years. I presume the amnesty Sinn Féin wants is the strong suggestion that we should not collect that money-----

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of order, I was ruled out of order for raising the issue of the amnesty. I did not get an opportunity to properly explain our position. Now, the Minister wants to misrepresent the position. When we get to the section, I will certainly clarify all of those issues for the Minister. To avoid a situation where she wastes all of our time attacking Sinn Féin for no reason, perhaps we can move on and deal with the amendments before us.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If the Senator will allow me, I will deal with this matter. In fairness, as I ruled Senator Cullinane out of order, and while I hope the Minister will not take it badly, perhaps she should confine her response to the particular amendments. Senator Cullinane has a number of other amendments and perhaps the point the Minister is making can be raised on another issue.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To be helpful to the House, the point I am making is that, from time immemorial, the Title of the winter social welfare Bill is the "Social Welfare Bill" because it is the one that deals with the budget. It does not take in a whole range of miscellaneous titles. The Senator expanded for a time on wanting to include in that discussion of "Miscellaneous" a broader perspective in regard to his party's discussion and frequent request for what is described as an amnesty.

I am not accepting Senator Cullinane's amendment. There are two Bills a year, one relating to the budget, which is this Bill. Social welfare covers 50 to 60 major payments and categories of individuals who receive those payments. They are all covered by the Social Welfare Bill, as are the 4 million people who directly and indirectly receive some element of social welfare payments regularly through the year. I am not inclined to accept his expansion of the Title and I am told by the Parliamentary Counsel there is no particular need of it. For example, when we come to the spring-early summer Bill, the Title of that Bill in full depends on the particular contents of the Bill.

If the Bill in the summer will also provide for amendments to the 1990 Pensions Act, the Title will also be amended to include a reference to being partly related to pensions. The Title will be the social welfare miscellaneous provisions Bill. I am informed by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel that the current Title, Social Welfare Bill 2012, is sufficient for the amendments provided for in the Bill, as passed by Dáil Éireann. The various Committee Stage amendments proposed by Senators are also covered by the current Title. In the circumstances, there is no need to include a reference to miscellaneous provisions in the Title.

The reason the issue of an amnesty arose is because it is referenced in the amendment. I was not clear what the Sinn Féin position on this was when I received the amendment.

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It was ruled out of order.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Cullinane obviously referred to it in his contribution. I am making the advice I have available to the Senator as to why I will not accept this amendment.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 2 to 4, inclusive, have been ruled out of order.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Why was amendment No. 3 ruled out of order?

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am informed they involve a potential charge on the Exchequer.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, but I want to challenge your ruling. It is a complete nonsense. Amendment No. 3 simply states certain orders shall require the approval of an Oireachtas committee.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Norris is out of order. This ruling was made by the Cathaoirleach. It is not Deputy Norris's amendment.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What would the expense to the Exchequer be for sending an order to an Oireachtas committee?

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not Deputy Norris's amendment and I do not believe it is right he challenges the ruling on this.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not like nonsense. What is the expense involved? Members are paid a wage that will not increase because of referring an order to a committee.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are many amendments here. These are Senator Cullinane's amendments and it is up to him to raise this when he speaks on section 1.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Cullinane can speak about these amendments when he speaks on the section.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, he can. I am not accepting a confrontation on the Cathaoirleach's decision which was communicated to Senator Cullinane who, with reservation, accepted it.

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As I want to move the debate on, I will not dispute the Chair's ruling. Under this section, our amendments, in agreement with the Minister, sought to reform the social protection system to cut down on fraud and waste. The majority of cases of overpayments are not due to fraud but errors on the part of the Department or the recipient. On Second Stage, the Minister stated the current repayment threshold is ¤2 a week but that she wants to increase this to ¤20. We believe such a threshold is far too high when a recipient could be on only ¤188 a week.

In any event, our amendments sought to have the Minister seek the approval of the social protection committee before introducing these thresholds. If she cannot agree to that, she should at least allow for a debate on the matter in the committee. There have been many debates in this House on poverty and equality-proofing legislation. Sinn Féin's amendments sought to ensure fraud and waste are dealt with it but in a humane and pragmatic way. If we seek too much in weekly repayments from those who might have been overpaid through no mistake of their own, we may push them further into poverty.

These amendments also sought to bring some transparency and accountability to the decision on this matter by allowing the committee to scrutinise the Minister's decision.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will make one comment and I do not propose to be troublesome, waste time or get myself thrown out of the House. That would not be in my interest or anyone else's.

However, I take great offence at the affront to intelligence and truth contained in a statement from the Chair that the seeking of the approval of an Oireachtas committee causes an expense on the Exchequer. I want to register the fact it simply does not. Other reasons might have been found to rule it out, but the one given is inappropriate. I object to such a travesty of the business of this House.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The ruling has been made. Senator Norris can take it up with the Cathaoirleach's office.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can we tease out some of the benefits of sending this order to the Oireachtas committee? I would also like to know why overpayments might take place. Given we are moving from a ¤2 per week repayment threshold to a 15% of the overpayment per week, has it been poverty-proofed? As many Senators are members of the social protection committee, I do not see why we cannot have this discussion here rather than sending it to the committee.

Marie Moloney (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have dealt with many cases of social welfare overpayments. However, I have yet to deal with a person who was allowed to pay it back at ¤2 per week. I have often had to argue the toss to have the repayments reduced from ¤30 a week. I hope the appeals process will allow overpayment recipients to put their case.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of order, the Senator is not speaking to the section.

Marie Moloney (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am speaking to the section.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The section relates to the commencement date of other sections. We can discuss those other sections later. This is filibustering.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not a point of order. Will the Senator please resume his seat?

Marie Moloney (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will reserve my comments until the sections arise.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Oireachtas social protection committee decides its own agenda. It is the committee's prerogative to discuss social welfare amnesties or overpayment recovery. I suggest the Sinn Féin members of the committee bring their proposal to the Chair of the committee and, in time-honoured fashion, it will be addressed.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for a sensible response.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator's amendment referred to committees of the Dáil. Every year the Comptroller and Auditor General publishes the amounts of money outstanding to the Department of Social Protection and the Revenue Commissioners which he, along with the Committee of Public Accounts, would like to see recovered. This is a perfectly understandable part of public administrative policy.

The arrears in regard to social welfare are just under ¤350 million. About 60% of people who are in arrears are also in receipt of a social welfare payment. The issue is covered in detail in section 13. If somebody owes the Department ¤1,500, which is the average sum that is owed in quite a number of significant cases, it does not take much to do the maths to calculate how long it will take to recover ¤1,500 at ¤2 a week. All we propose is that Department should be in a position to make those recoveries in a more timely fashion. It is a cause of some scandal if people who have got away with money owed to the Department, some of it through fraud and abuse, repay it at ¤2 a week over a long number of years. The repayment is simply to provide for the recovery of those amounts. What could be achieved with the recovery of ¤350 million, or even half of ¤350 million, over a period of three or five years? It would provide my Department with additional resources of somewhere between ¤20 million and ¤35 million to ¤40 million a year, which could be allocated to important areas such as paying pensioners. I do not understand what problem is with this proposal. As I said in my Second Stage speech, the proposal relates to an individual's personal individual payment; it does not affect the person's spouse, children or other dependants or any payments they or anybody else in the House may have. I made that very clear yesterday.

On the question of whether the staff in the Department of Social Protection take into the account the circumstances of the individual and the circumstances of the over-payment, I gave that undertaking in my speech yesterday. On the question of whether we should recover the overpayments, we should absolutely, because they will provide much needed resources, which all the Members of the House would be concerned to ensure would be devoted to social protection and to people who are entitled to social protection payments. That is what the proposal is about. The requirement in this respect and a discussion on it takes place annually at the Committee of Public Accounts and it appears annually in the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General. However, should the social protection committee wish to discuss it, I am sure that if a member of the Senator's party is on that committee, he or she could raise the matter with the chairperson and it would be a matter for the committee and the chairperson to decide if they wish to discuss it further.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to ask the Minister a simple question. How many prosecutions has the Department carried out in attempting to recover those arrears of ¤350 million and how much have they yielded?

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not have the figures immediately to hand but the Senator may be aware that it has been a departmental policy for the past number of years that where the level of the abuse or fraud is material, that is above a figure of, say, ¤20,000 or so, prosecutions will be made and prosecutions are taking place. The media in general report on such cases. Once a decision is made to proceed with the potential of a prosecution being made, the matter passes out of the hands of the Department and is administered by the State's prosecution service. In recent years the Judiciary has taken a very serious view of any fraud or abuse of the social welfare system. Such cases are reported regularly and extensively in the media. There has been a significant increase in cases and in some of them, particularly those that involve fake multiple identities, which unfortunately has become an issue of abuse in the social welfare system, penalties have been imposed, including jail time. The courts have taken a very serious view of such abuse but the detailed prosecution of the individual is a matter ultimately for the prosecution service.

The special investigations unit of the Department of Social Protection has set up a series of special programmes, the detail of which I will not go into now, to target serious areas of fraud, including people who steal and adopt identities and use them to abuse or defraud the social welfare system. That is not a matter for today in the context of this Bill. If the Senator wishes, at a future stage in the Seanad we can go into the details of the anti-fraud special investigations unit of the Department, which works with other agencies such as the Revenue Commissioners, the Garda and customs to ensure that persons suspected of social welfare fraud are pursued and that the fraud is stopped. If the amounts of money involved are of a serious nature, those matters are taken to the prosecution authorities and they make a decision whether to go ahead and prosecute. The Senator will be aware that some very severe sentences have been handed down to people who adopted multiple identity frauds resulting in very significant losses to the Department. This would be a person who has collected benefits in the name of a person who is dead or who has stolen other people's identities and built up an amount collected from the benefits over a number of years. As the Senator can imagine, that would result in a very significant loss of money to the Department.

Our proposal is that in such a case recovering those moneys at ¤2 a week does not send out a serious message. The provisions with which we will deal in section 13 provide for the moneys to be recovered at a moderate amount of up to 15% of the principal payment. It does not affect the person's children or other dependants. This would result in significant recovery of moneys for the Department over a period a time. When overpayments come to light in the future, we will be in a position to initiate recovery of more serious sums from the time the overpayment was discovered, bearing in mind that the social welfare officials will have due regard to the position of the individual and the circumstances which gave rise to the overpayment.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That comment was probably more appropriate to the later section.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A Leas-Chathaoirligh-----

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I allowed the Senator in on this issue and I should not have done so. The Minister said that this is more appropriate to section 13. We are on section 1 and I have already admonished Senator Cullinane for being ultra vires in speaking outside the remit of the section. If the Senator is going to wander from the section with which we are dealing, I will take a very strict line on it.

Ivana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A Leas-Chathaoirligh-----

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Senator raising a point related to section 1?

Ivana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am and I will not wander.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is the Senator still in the Labour Party?

Mary White (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Go back to DL.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They are getting rid of a lot of Labour Party people.

Ivana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a specific question for the Minister on section 1(4). We have been focusing on the issue of the coming into operation of section 13. Section 1(4) provides for sections 15, 16 and 17 coming into operation on different days as the Minister may order. Given what we have been talking about and the importance of that issue, what day does the Minister envisage those sections will be commenced and would there be different commencement dates for section 13 which deals with the issue of the recovery of overpayments, as against the other sections which deal with very different matters?

I thought the Minister's answer to Senator Mooney's question was very comprehensive. As my party's justice spokesperson, I would like us to have a debate in this House on the particular issue the Senator raised on a different day concerning the issue of prosecutions for fraud in this area. That is something that has changed, developed and we have seen a great increase in the number of prosecutions recently. I would like to Minister to reply specifically on the commencement dates for the sections referred to in section 1(4).

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the Minister to be brief in her response.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To be helpful to Senator Bacik, the various provisions contained in the Bill will come into effect in a number of ways. Certain sections require or specify a date on which the provisions of that section come into operation. For example, section 10, which relates to the minimum contribution payable by self-employed contributors, specifies that this measure will take place from 1 January 2013. Where no specific commencement date is provided for in the relevant section of the Bill and where that provision is not to be brought into force by way of a commencement order in accordance with section 1(4), that provision of the Bill will come into effect on the enactment of the Bill, and obviously that will require the President's signature after the passage of the Bill.

That is the case, for instance, with the provisions of section 3 which relate to the calculation of the yearly average and alternative yearly average for State pension purposes.

The purpose of a commencement order is to provide an element of flexibility regarding the timing of when a particular provision of the Bill is to be commenced. This allows for the necessary administrative work to be undertaken to facilitate the introduction of the particular measure. As a commencement order made in accordance with section 1(4) is merely bringing particular provisions contained in the Bill that have already been approved by both the Dáil and the Seanad into force from a specific date, it would be inappropriate for such orders to have to be approved once again by the Oireachtas.

The specific proposal being made was that such orders would require to be approved by a committee of the Oireachtas. This would in effect give a committee of the Oireachtas the power to overrule the will of the Oireachtas. That is why I said if people want discussions on certain matters they can take them to the relevant committee and the relevant committee can decide to discuss them but the committee does not have power of legislation. As I have said, I do not believe that is necessary or appropriate and for the same reason I do not consider it appropriate for drafts of such an order to have to be debated by a committee of the Oireachtas before it could be made but it is open to the Oireachtas committee on education and social protection to debate the implications of such an order once it has been made.

Conversely, I would point out that in last year's Bill, for instance, which was the subject of much discussion here among the Senators, there was the age in regard to lone parents. That comes into effect on 1 January next. If the Bill is passed, including the proposal before the House in the relevant section towards the end of the Bill, that date will be brought forward next year and every other year to the beginning of July. However, if the Bill is not passed last year's Act stands and the ageing out process in regard to approximately 1,000 lone parents begins in January and every January thereafter, as opposed to the proposal in the Bill to amend that and change it to July to facilitate interviews for lone parents who are ageing out and to facilitate opportunities around training and education for lone parents whose children are older and who, as we discussed last year, are settled in school. I hope that clarifies the matter.

Ivana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Specifically-----

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I remind the Senator that we have spent 40 minutes on the first section. There are 18 sections and we are due to finish the debate at 7 p.m.

Ivana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I just have a specific question about the likely date of the commencement order for-----

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is shameful and pathetic from a law professor.

Ivana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is in section 1.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister gave a substantive answer. As she explained, it is different for different sections and that is clear.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 5 in the name of Senators Cullinane, Ó Clochartaigh and Reilly involves a potential charge on the Exchequer and must be ruled out of order. Amendment No. 6 in the name of Senator Cullinane and others is ruled out of order because it is declaratory in nature.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are ruled out of order as they involve a potential charge on the Exchequer.

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to speak to the section. Our amendments were ruled out of order but we wanted to include in this section the retention of the back to school clothing and footwear payment which has been cut. As the Minister is aware, many families are dependent on this very important allowance. It ensures that families either in poverty or barely struggling to survive have some means of support to buy school uniforms, clothes and get their children to primary and secondary school. It is wrong that we do not have an opportunity to properly scrutinise that cut which the Minister is making. It is something that will be made by her, as Minister, and not by legislators, especially people who made promises on these issues, but the payments are very important to those families. It is not just about the ¤50 cut this year; it was cut by ¤50 last year.

The Minister might clarify the comments she made to the effect that people should shop around and get value for money. I know many families who have to buy their school uniforms in certain shops because only certain shops stock their school uniforms. They do not have the luxury of shopping around and even if families do shop around, school uniforms have a certain cost, as do school books, footwear and so on. If we want to genuinely cherish free education to make sure that families are properly supported, we must ensure that the supports are in place.

This is one of the cruel cuts in this budget that will also impact on many families. It would have been better if the Minister had included this social welfare cut, and it is a social welfare cut, in this section of the Social Welfare Bill to allow us, as legislators, an opportunity to properly scrutinise it and make decisions on it. I wonder if some of these cuts were left out because they might be very difficult decisions for people to have to make by way of voting for them. That would be a cynical move if it were the case but I take the opportunity to register my personal disgust, on behalf of the many families I represent who have e-mailed me, to whom I have spoken and who have been in contact with me who are scandalised by many of the cuts in the social welfare budget but who have been very upset by this cut also because of the impact it will have on the ability of many families to be able to pay for school books, footwear and the school uniforms they need to pay for when it comes to the time for their children to return to school.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will refrain from saying anything about the claw-back of overpayments but I hope we will reach that section because in the Dáil-----

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is section 13.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know it is section 13. They did not reach it in the Dáil. It will pass through both Houses without ever being discussed and only the Minister's response placed on the record. That is undemocratic.

With regard to the back to school clothing and footwear allowance-----

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are on section 3.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, that is contained in the section. I want to make a couple of points. I was so concerned about this matter that I raised it in the debate in this House on budget day. It is worth remarking that a previous Government fell on a similar issue of children's shoes.

I want to be brief and get on to the substance, particularly the respite care issue, as all of us do. My final point concerns the situation in schools with regard to heating, a proper environment and so on which is so desperate that children are wearing several layers of clothes and they are told to jump up and down. It is essential that children in this country at least have access to warm, proper and appropriate clothing. I would strongly support the argument Senator Cullinane has made although, laughably, this House is not allowed to tinker with money, even to the extent of having a discussion, which costs nothing.

My final point is that if this House had been in charge of the economy we could not have made a greater banjo of it than the other House.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Senator Healy Eames.

Marie Moloney (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of order, I was chastised earlier for speaking to a section not in the Bill. Section 3 does not deal with the back to school-----

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Cullinane had tabled amendments which were ruled out of order but he said he wanted to speak on the section.

Ivana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of order, Senator Moloney is right. Section 3 does not refer to that. Senator Cullinane wanted to insert a new section which would have referred to it but that was ruled out of order.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He spoke on the section. That is dealt with.

Marie Moloney (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I just do not understand why I was-----

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will speak to the amendments on section 3 with regard to-----

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Those amendments were ruled out of order and therefore the Senator cannot speak to them.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am speaking to the section with regard to the back to school clothing and footwear allowance.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator's colleague said it is not in order so she should be brief.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of order-----

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, it is not a point of order. The point the Senator wishes to make he made earlier.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The filibuster has been used historically to stop people getting their civil rights. The Government is shamefully using a filibuster to prevent debate about serious cuts to the most vulnerable in our society.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have ruled on that point, Senator Byrne. Resume your seat.

Ivana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am trying to move the debate on, as was Senator Maloney.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Healy Eames should stick to the point.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sticking to the point. I take great umbrage at the reference to a filibuster.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have ruled on that, Senator. Do not draw it on you again. I have ruled the Senators out of order.

Ivana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you, Chair.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Thank you, Chair. The back to school clothing and footwear allowance is a very serious issue. The allowance is given to parents for the benefit of children. Yesterday on Second Stage of the Social Welfare Bill, I asked the Minister if it would be possible to provide the allowance in voucher form to allow parents to use vouchers in a range of shops for clothing and footwear. Anecdotally, I hear the money is frequently not used on children.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You are wandering again, Senator.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Section 3 of the Bill has nothing to do with the back to school clothing allowance at all. We all want to get to the substantive amendments before the House today. I do not think it serves any purpose, but I clarify for Senator Healy Eames that the back to school clothing allowance is not referenced in the section.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is up to me to act as Cathaoirleach. Senator O'Brien's intervention is also delaying the debate. I ask the Minister to respond so we can move on.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Regarding Senator Cullinane's remarks on section 3, it is one of the charms of being in the Seanad that there are opportunities for erudition which are not often available in the Dáil. It is very welcome to be part of this very detailed debate on these points.

The back to school clothing and footwear allowance provides a one-off payment to eligible families. It is not intended to meet the full cost of school clothing and footwear but to provide assistance towards such costs. As the bulk of families in receipt of the payment are also in receipt of social welfare payments, the Senator will know they receive ¤30 per week per child. The Senator will also know that in addition to what they receive currently, they will receive next year ¤130 per month per child. I make the point in case the Senator is implying that the State does not make other payments to children who are members of families in receipt of social welfare. The State makes extensive payments. If children have a special need, they may also be in receipt of other payments such as the domiciliary care allowance. The State makes, as is proper, an extensive range of payments to children, including additional payments to children with special needs. Approximately ¤63 million was spent on the scheme in 2012 on 185,000 families, including well over 250,000 children. Budget 2013 provides for a reduction in the rate of back to school clothing and footwear allowance from ¤150 to ¤100 for children aged between four and 11 years and from ¤250 to ¤200 for children aged 12 years or more. The proposed rates for 2013 are not intended to meet the full costs for children returning to school but to assist them while there are other significant payments made to parents and from which more than 250,000 children benefitted this year.

The rates of back to school clothing---

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are on section 3, Minister.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am replying to a Senator.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ruled that out of order.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Cullinane made statements which failed to reflect the full extent of the social welfare payments made in respect of children. It is important in a fair debate for the Senator to acknowledge the ingredients of the ¤20.2 billion which is paid by taxpayers to those on social welfare.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If we had a fair debate, we would deal with all the sections of the Bill. The Bill was guillotined in the Dáil and it should not be guillotined here.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The back to school clothing and footwear allowance is an important support. I am happy to have provided in the budget for additional funds for hot-meal services in schools which are very important. I admit to have taken funds from direct cash payments to provide for services to children in school. The underlying issue in the debate on social welfare is the correct balance between cash payments to people who rely on social welfare for their income and the provision of services by the State. During the boom years, we concentrated largely on increasing cash payments and in many ways failed to expand service provision which is often most important to families with children. I ask Senators to consider the budget in the round and to look at the expansion of programmes and the funding provided for after-school care services and special projects for children in disadvantaged areas as well as the additional funding provided for hot school breakfasts. I understand that the Senator is making a debating point, but this is a very serious Chamber and I ask him to consider the social welfare budget in its totality. While there is pressure on the social welfare budget at a time of unprecedented economic difficulty, we are trying to be innovative by putting more services in place where we can be sure children will benefit. The expansion of the programme of hot school meals represents such a service as do measures for children in very disadvantaged areas. We are also providing more than 6,000 additional after-school child care places and, as discussed yesterday, 10,000 additional places for services and community employment. The budget should be viewed in context as reformatory and as striking a balance between service provision and direct cash payments. Most parties in the House will agree that we got the balance wrong in the boom years with an excessive focus on direct cash as opposed to the delivery of services. That was not only the case in the case of social welfare but across a range of services provided by Government.

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Section 4 goes right to the heart of the issue.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Keep it relevant, Senator. By not being relevant, the Minister takes latitude and will not respond to you.

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have not even spoken. This goes to the heart of the issue of forcing legislation through without proper scrutiny. We raised issues on the subject matter of section 4 last year. Section 4 deals with pension contributions. The issues I wish to discuss arise from legislation passed in 1997 which provided that the number of contributions required was to be doubled from 260 to 520. Last year's budget gave effect to that provision and the legislation passed in its wake sought to apply the measure to everyone from April 2012. We objected to that at the time and were lobbied by a number of individuals who were fast approaching retirement only to discover their pension entitlement would be a fraction of what they had expected. It affected the women particularly.

The legislation overlooked certain categories of people. Our figures show that 540 people managed to qualify for a pension with only 260 contributions. Changes are now being made to correct that, the reason being that we rushed through the legislation last year as we are again this year. This is important because it reinforces the argument we would all make that we need proper scrutiny of legislation passing through the House. We should not force the Social Welfare Bill through simply to get it done before the end of the year. We must allow sufficient time for both the Upper and Lower Houses to scrutinise the legislation properly.

It appears that we missed a category of people last year.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator has made his point. The Minister may respond.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Even by the standards of the Oireachtas, notification going back to 1997 is fairly lengthy. Sinn Féin may have had other things on its mind in 1997 besides debates in the Oireachtas-----

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The agreement.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In fairness to all parties here there was an agreement then. A cornerstone of our social welfare system is a very important and significant contributory old age pension which can be funded only if the people who wish to benefit from it contribute enough to meet the promises that the Government has made. There are an increasing number of people who survive not only to claim their pensions but to live for a very long time. That is a great demographic bonus for this country as is the number of children in the country. It does cost significantly more to fund pensions for the increasing number of people claiming contributory and non-contributory old age pensions. This year and next year the social welfare Estimate will provide for an additional ¤200 million to ¤300 million in funds to cover the increase in the older population and the fact that those people are living longer.

The second part of our system, which is probably one of its best parts, is the non-contributory pension. If for some reason a person has made limited contributions or none to a contributory pension and has limited or insufficient means, that person can claim a non-contributory pension whose rate is pretty close to that of the contributory pension. I can assure the Senator that his suggestion, which implied that many people, particularly women, will suddenly be left without an old age pension is wrong. There will of course be people whose contributions have been insufficient so they will receive a partial pension assessed in terms of contributions, as they would always have done. Going back to the time of Lloyd George one cannot have a contributory pension-----

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Lloyd George was not around last year.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator should allow the Minister to speak without interruption please.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One cannot have a contributory pension system unless the people who expect to be beneficiaries of the system contribute sufficiently to it. Way back in 1997 all of the parties then in the Dáil agreed to increase the number of pension contributions required on a staggered basis over a long period. The Oireachtas agreed to one of the changes in the early 2000s. The second set of changes has come into effect now. The Senator must remember that it is a social insurance scheme, just like that under which people insure their property, and unless there is a sufficient payment to the insurance fund there will not be enough to pay the legitimate claimants when there are many claims on the policy.

As the country's demographics change and there are more old people living longer it makes fundamental good sense that, since 1997, the Oireachtas has provided that if there is a large increase in the numbers likely to claim a contributory pension, there would be greater contributions. The good thing about the Irish system, and this is a tribute to successive Governments, is not only do we have a contributory system but we also have a strong non-contributory system which provides that anybody who has made insufficient contributions or, in some cases, for various reasons, has not contributed to the system, is in a position, on a means-tested basis, to claim a very significant non-contributory old age pension. I put it to Senator Cullinane that if he were to compare the pension provision for older people in the Republic with that in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland he would find that under successive Governments, the Irish State and taxpayer have been as strong and as generous as possible in the context of the State's means. Almost everybody in the North would acknowledge this. The Senator's suggestion that in a social insurance pension system we would abandon notions of proper funding is not the way to provide for the economic-----

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not say that at all, with respect.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator should allow the Minister to speak without interruption.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not the way to provide for the economic-----

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister did not listen to a word I said. She came in with a prepared script.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister without interruption.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not believe that I am holding any script in my hand.

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister has not listened to a word I have said.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister without interruption.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not holding any script because I believe strongly in the social insurance principle. I have said to the Senator, and it may be news to Sinn Féin, that all the parties in this House down the years have supported the creation of a strong pension framework for older people which comprises two parts from the point of view of the social welfare system, a social insurance-based contributory system and if there are not enough contributions to that system, there will not be enough to pay out, and, second, a very strong non-contributory payment which is means tested for people of insufficient means and who have not contributed to the system.

This change was laid down in 1997 and at that time there was a degree of foresight in ensuring that our social insurance system would be maintained. That makes a lot of sense. For further reading a couple of months ago we published the actuarial review of the Social Insurance Fund which strongly suggested that not only should we be doing things like this but we should be increasing the level of contributions to ensure that as many people as possible are covered for their retirement with a reasonable, decent old age pension. These significant achievements are a tribute to successive Governments. In the context of this Bill that is one reason I have emphasised so strongly the importance of the core weekly social welfare payment to contributors.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For the purposes of this debate the Cathaoirleach might consider banning words such as "fairness", "equity" and "justice" because they do not apply to this section or to the overall thrust of this Bill. We have had skirmishes for the past hour and ten minutes but this is the beginning of the discussion on the heart of this Bill. I could not help but reflect that it is coming from a party that for many years in opposition lectured this party on fairness and equity. It reminds me of the late lamented Frank Hall who on "Hall's Pictorial Weekly" in the 1970s created a character called the Minister for Hardship. We could call the Departments of the gang of five Labour Party Ministers Departments of Hardship because what they are doing to the most vulnerable is ironic. Theirs was the party that for a number of years took the high moral ground saying that if it had the opportunity to be in government it would be better than the other side.

They promised specifically not to do certain things. They suggested that in government they would protect the vulnerable. They would ensure the dastardly people in the Fine Gael Party would not introduce subtle cuts that would affect the most vulnerable, whom they see as the larger part of their constituency. Look at what has happened. In every Department with a Labour Party Minister, and I include Iveagh House - although as far as I am aware the only cut the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade made was to shut down the Irish embassy in the Vatican - in the Departments of Education and Skills, Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, and Social Protection we have seen cut after cut.

The Minister will be aware that in the past week the IMF which has been monitoring the economic progress of the country and helped in the bailout programme has said one needs to question the austerity measures. In the United States, the hardline neo-conservative Republicans agree that austerity has gone far enough and are now willing to see that the upper echelons of wealthy Americans pay more. The Minister had the opportunity to provide a viable alternative that would have prevented this cut of ¤26 million. A survey was carried out in 2006 - and perhaps there is a need for an updated survey as times have changed - in which 2,000 carers were surveyed and the conclusion was that one in four used the grant, which was then ¤1,200, for other things such as basic foodstuffs, heating and lighting. That was in the boom times. Consider the stories of anguish and torment that are being experienced by families who are relying to a large extent on the money from the Department of Social Protection. Most of those in receipt of the respite grant get it from the Department of Social Protection. How can the Minister stand over these cuts, when one considers her background? She should be ashamed of herself.

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I had the privilege of following the Minister on the hustings in 2011. She was an outstanding representative and deserves her ministry. I know the Department of Social Protection is benevolent. I also had the privilege of visiting the Department and I know it runs a benevolent city but that is where I must part company with the Minister and her Department. I wish to make a few simple points on the respite care allowance.

In the first paragraph of her speech, the Minister states one of her priorities is "that those in most need of the assistance are protected....". In 2013, ¤775 million will be spent "to support carers". It is wonderful. "Protection" is a great word, but the Minister has an unique way of defining it. Who are we really protecting? We are protecting the big boys with a lot of money, the Vegas bagmen banks and the "cleaner uppers" of the Vegas bagmen banks. We gave ¤3,750 million to the Bank of Ireland. We gave ¤3,750 million to AIB. We gave ¤52,000 million to garbage known as "Anglo Irish Bank". We pay ¤140 million in salaries per year for the 1,100 people who work in NAMA and the IBRC, but we could not find ¤26 million for carers who care for the ill, the frail, family friends, the handicapped, the challenged, be they old, middle aged or young. The carers save the State ¤4 billion through their bravery.

All day yesterday Senators were making comparisons comparing Ireland with other countries. We had comparisons with Northern Ireland, Finland, Germany and the Netherlands. We are not these countries. We are living in Ireland and we should be changing the things that our own people, the Irish need to have changed. We should not be copying, good or bad with respect to Senator Quinn, what happens elsewhere. The idea of comparison is useless, whether it is positive or negative. We must do what we have to do for ourselves.

The Government must stand up for its own actions. I must stand up for mine. No Government, or Members of the Seanad, can blame somebody else for what happens to them. If they say "It is your fault that I am the way I am", I respond, "No, it is not, it is our own fault". These are useless arguments and get us nowhere. It is nobody's fault. The Minister must make the decision and the Government must take the repercussions for the limiting decision it is making on respite allowance.

Nobody, neither Senator, Minister or Government has the monopoly on the right thing to do, the hard and unpalatable thing to do, nor do they have the monopoly on the right reasons. The Government has the monopoly in this House on bad decisions. Bad choices are disguised as protection.

My final point is that the Minister told us yesterday that if the Bill were to be paused for 90 days, the loss in respect of social welfare would be ¤124 million. This money would have to be made up from her own budget. That may be true, but it is no reason for this House to falter. We are a country that spent most of our time making decisions based on fear. The Seanad is no place for this to happen again. Fear is the last place we should go when we are being asked to make a decision.

I will finish with these questions. Where is the Government's honour? That was the great question that the Greeks asked. Where is the empowerment, recognition and support promised to carers? Where are the Government strategies that promised access to respite breaks? Where are the Government's commitments to the national carers' strategy? The argument made by Government that the basic carer's allowance or the core income was not touched can be translated to carers as follows, "One can only have a moment in the sun and you need to be grateful for that." There are many people on very high allowances and salaries, which can be translated as, "You can still have every moment in the sun and live without fear of clouds and have the expectation of increases." The Minister must find ¤26 million elsewhere to sustain the carer's respite grant. Members across all parties can have our equal share in the same sun.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Fianna Fáil Party spokesperson on social protection has outlined our point of view. I spoke on Second Stage yesterday. The 20% cut in respite care is a significant cut, and one would be hard put to find another cut of that magnitude in the budget. Some 77,000 families receive this payment. I further remind colleagues that this is the only payment some 5,000 families receive. The Minister of State, Deputy McEntee, said that one could stay in a fine hotel for ¤700 a week and get a break. That is an outrageous comment. I have met both carers and those who are cared for and the Minister and I know what the money is used for. I believe the Minister knows that this proposed cut is wrong. The Government has made a mistake. Nobody is right all the time. Since the announcement of the proposed cuts I have spoken to many people. People have different views on child benefit, some think it should be taxed, others think it should be means tested, while another group think it should be a universal payment. However, I have met nobody, neither a member of the general public nor a constituent, and certainly none of the Minister's constituents in Dublin West, who agree that the respite care grant should be cut by 20%. These are some of the most vulnerable people in the country. If one tried to pick a cohort of people, one would be hard pressed to find a more vulnerable group. I have met nobody who has told me this cut is correct. I do not believe the Minister thinks it is right. I do not think any of the Senators on the Government side believe this cut is right. I may be convinced further down the line on things that may happen to child benefit and I am open to it. I welcomed the Minister's suggestion yesterday of publishing the report on child benefit and discussing it in the Chamber. Mr. Paddy Doyle is in the Visitor's Gallery and I met him and his friends. They will tell the Minister what the respite care grant means to them. I will not listen to people who apologise for breaking an election promise.

Saying sorry for breaking that election promise and voting for the Bill at the same time will not reinstate the ¤325 cut. Let us be straight about the role of this House. I have served in both Houses. I have regard for every Member of this House, but we should not be threatened by the fact that it will cost the Department of Social Protection ¤124 million extra if we do what the Constitution states we should do. We are not asking Members to bring down the Government or defeat the Bill but to deal with the cut to the respite care grant. That is the reason I implore colleagues to reject this section and return it to Dáil Éireann. We should respectfully state the Members have got it wrong and that ¤26 million can be raised in another way. Imposing an additional 3% on those earning more than ¤100,000 would raise ¤200 million. Where is the fairness? The Department has made a mistake; let the Seanad rectify it and show its courage and true value.

Mary Ann O'Brien (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We all realise what busy lives Ministers and politicians lead - 12, 14 and 18 hour days are the norm. Let us come out of our bubble in this beautiful room and talk about the people who have neither the time nor the freedom to go to the gates of Leinster House. Carers face the lonely hard reality of providing care 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They use daily words such as nebulising, postural drainage, spoon and tube feeding. I should know as I was a carer and had to deal with a screaming, starving child who might have been having an epileptic fit as the tube had come out in the middle of the night and I had to get it back down the child's nose. It is a lonely hard place to be in.

Even if an old person with Alzheimer's disease is able to eat with a knife and fork, one is under strain and stress and suffers from sleep deprivation. One is constantly worried that the person may go missing, whether he or she could be upstairs. downstairs or some place else. We are talking about people who care for others.

Where are all the Senators?

Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are a lot more than on other occasions for the Order of Business.

Mary Ann O'Brien (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator John Crown who, unfortunately, only had one and a half minutes to speak last night, was beginning to come up with some very good progressive ideas on how we could save money in other areas. Carers become stressed and may get sick when they are not cared for. Do we want them to spend their days in hospital, as Senator John Crown asked last night? If even 10% of carers or carees were to spend one day a year in hospital, the Minister would see the costs involved.

Does the troika detail to the Minister what needs to be cut from social welfare payments? My take on the memorandum of understanding is that any new measure of equal value can be substituted or brought forward to make savings in the national budget. Will the Minister clarify this for all Government Senators? Most of the Government Senators to whom I have spoken are certain that it must be cut from the budget of the Department of Social Protection. The money does not have to come from social welfare payments; I have ten ideas on where we could save money and I am willing to meet anybody to discuss them.

The Minister states that if we pause the passage of the Bill, it will cost ¤124 million. I am open to correction, but the respite care grant is not due to be paid until June 2013. I plead, at the very least, for a stay of execution. Cross-party Members will put their hearts into finding a solution to find the ¤26 million that needs to be saved.

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is never too late to do the correct thing. It is the responsibility of the Minister and Government Senators to do the right thing by carers. I have received many e-mails from people who care for children, those with profound disabilities and older people. Some, although not all, are in receipt of a payment, but they genuinely depend on the respite care grant. They are distraught at the prospect of losing ¤325 a year which comes on top of all the other cuts which will impact on them. I am sure every Senator has received telephone calls on this issue. I work closely with the Carers Association in Waterford and know about the difficult, demanding but loving and caring job that caring is. People value what they do. They are looking after their spouse, mother or father or sons and daughters and people with profound disabilities. They look to the State to ensure they are properly protected, as they cannot defend themselves. They cannot go out to work. It is not by choice but the consequence of an accident, illness or disability that they must care for the person concerned. They do it because they love the person for whom they are caring, but they need support. I know the Minister knows that they need this support.

The Carers Association estimates that 77,000 carers receive the respite care grant. Of this number, about 5,000 do not receive any other payment whatsoever. It is also important to point to other provisions in the budget that will impact on carers: there is a 32% cut in the housing adaptation grants scheme to remediate houses to facilitate people with a disability; there is a threefold hike in prescription charges for medical card holders; there are changes to the drug repayment scheme and cuts to the household benefits package. We should also acknowledge that the previous Government cut the weekly rate of carer's allowance and the household benefits package, as did the Minister this year and last year. The financial supports for those with special dietary requirements have been cut also. All of these cuts impact on people with disabilities and their carers. Social Inclusion Ireland was very clear that this was a regressive move.

I wish to read an e-mail I received. It states:

As a mother of three children, one of whom has autism, I implore you to vote against this Bill. I have been at every protest mounted by the Carers Association since the publication of this budget. I have been at odds with many of my fellow carers because I felt it would take a supreme effort to get feet on the street and have strength in numbers. I can assure you that the low turnout was not due to apathy or laziness, it was because we had no one to hand over the reins to. There is no holiday or lunch time cover in the caring vocation. Plenty of overtime all right but all of it is unpaid. Before I became a mother to a son with autism, I was a granddaughter to a lady with dementia and I have cared in one capacity or another since I was ten years of age. I can assure you it was not my intended career path. I did not pursue a BA and H.Dip in order to become a carer. In fact I gave up my job only last year because the system was failing my son so badly that I had to give him my all.

I have a copy of the ESRI preliminary report on the budget which must make for very grim reading for the Labour Party. It points to the impact on people in various income brackets. Low income earners had their income reduced by over 1%.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are on section 5.

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I accept that.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is very specific.

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Middle income families had their income cut by just under 1%, while high income families had their income cut by only 0.5%. The budget has impacted on people, including carers, disproportionately.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator is moving outside the scope of the section. He is making a Second Stage speech.

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am providing the Minister with alternatives.

There was an opportunity for the Minister and the Government to increase taxation on higher earners to prevent the need to cut the respite care grant. With respect, that was the point I was making. All Members of the Oireachtas must stand by their principles. They must stand by what they were elected on. I have listened to the leader of the Labour Party saying to people who may vote with their conscience, who may vote on what they stand for, that they will be expelled from the Labour Party. That is shocking for democracy. They should stand by the people who voted for them. They should stand by the carers of Ireland. They should stand by those people who need to be protected, people whom the Minister promised she would protect. She has failed absolutely to do so. It is not too late for her to change her mind. There are any number of options that any of us could provide to the Minister for finding the ¤26 million. She will have the support of this House if she does it. The Minister climbed down and reversed decisions in many instances last year. She will have the collective strength and support of this House if she makes the right call on this issue and if she withdraws the cut to the respite care grants; if she ensures that all those families whom we all know and represent, are given the proper care supports that they give to the people they care for and if carers are given the same level of support from this State they had to enable them to do the job they do.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yesterday I spoke in the House in what I think was in a balanced and fair way. I paid tribute to the Minister for her courageous and valiant battle in reducing the scale of the cuts overall. It is important that we place these matters on the record of the House. I spoke passionately and with emotion. I placed on the record of the House the extent of the pain reflected in the very many e-mails I have received. I believe it is important that at the very least, we should act in Seanad Éireann as witnesses of an agony unparalleled in my experience of 25 years in the Seanad.

I do not propose to artificially resurrect the passion of yesterday. Now is the moment for making clear and clinical decisions. These decisions are about the welfare of the people of Ireland and they are, therefore, of extraordinary importance. Seanad Éireann stands as a last bulwark against injustice of a beleaguered people. The Minister recognised this fact because she says she does not wish to inflict this pain on the people.

I refer to her speech where she stated that she does not want to cut child benefit, respite care grant or the duration of jobseeker's allowance. I say to her then she should not do so. This House is constitutionally charged with the responsibility of not just revising legislation; we have the constitutional requirement to respectfully send back legislation for reflection by the Government for a period of 90 days maximum. It could be done in a much shorter period of time so the expense need not be the full 90 days.

The money can be found elsewhere quite easily from the people who are advantaged, as opposed to the disadvantaged. One very obvious and simple measure that has been remarked on - I am not claiming any originality - is the fact that people in the public service are still in receipt of increments. There is something obscene about paring away a minimal benefit from the disadvantaged while simultaneously there is the spectacle of the advantaged increasing their advantage. I cannot find any justification for people receiving wage increases. I can see some reason for saying that people have an argument to be allowed to retain in so far as possible the income they have because they have made commitments and so on. However, only a foolish person or a foolish Government makes provision in advance of receipt of the moneys.

The Minister has stated that the social welfare system has proven highly effective at preserving a threshold of decency for those most in need of support. Where now is that threshold of decency? It is just words, inert, on a page. We need to give them action. I sympathise with the Minister and I think she is a brave, courageous Minister. However, where is the social protection? Are people being protected? It reminds me of that awful period when the United Nations declared safe havens in Bosnia and people were massacred within them. Still they were safe havens and everyone could feel comfortable.

There is a political point here. I have been very proud to have been a Member of this House for 25 years. I would be ashamed if we do not send this Bill back to the Government. I believe we would be acting in defiance of the responsibility with which the House is charged. This would add, paradoxically, an argument to the Taoiseach's desire to abolish this House. If we fail to register our disapproval of this cut, then there is no reason for us to be here; we would become just a rubber stamp. We have the opportunity now, uniquely, to demonstrate that we have relevance to the people and that there are people of conscience in the political party system. I am privileged to stand outside it. I salute my colleagues who have been nominated by the Taoiseach because that confers an obligation on them. I am sure they feel an obligation yet they have rejected that very human emotion in the interests of the people. For that reason I am very glad that they were so appointed.

This Seanad may well be at the end of its life; I do not know. Nor do I know what the people's view is. The people would like to see politicians humiliated, got rid of. They would like to see the Seanad closed because they would like to see 60 politicians lose their jobs. I am sure they feel the same way about the other House. I have no doubt it is quite a possibility that the people would decide: "Yes, they are just politicians, get rid of them. They haven't earned our respect, our trust. They haven't earned the right to continue in operation." If we push this issue and if we reject this section of the Bill and require the Government to reconsider it over a period of up to 90 days, then it may well be that if the Taoiseach seeks to punish Seanad Éireann for its temerity-----

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are dealing with section 5 of the Bill, Senator Norris. You are speaking outside the section.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----the people will understand what is going on and they may take a different view.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As I said yesterday I greatly regret this cut. I would have hoped there were fairer ways of achieving these savings. I proposed a number of ways this might have happened. It is very difficult to sit here on this side of the House and to hear Members on the other side, particularly those who were in the previous Government, talk about unfairness. Was it fair that ¤5 was taken off the blind pension?

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I spoke about that at the time.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Was it fair that ¤8 per week was taken off the carer's allowance, amounting to ¤416 in one year?

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a matter of indifference to people like me who is in Government if it is not just.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Norris, you spoke for six and a half minutes. We are on section 5 of the Bill.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In another year, ¤8.50 per week was taken off carers and the Christmas bonus was taken away. These were not fair cuts.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I agree.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

People were caring at that time-----

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of order, I do not like to interrupt the Senator but I made this point.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is the point of order?

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is completely pointless and useless to talk about yesterday. It is a point of order. We are dealing with the Social Welfare Bill

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Please resume your seat, Senator O'Donnell. You are delaying the proceedings.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On section 5 of the Bill, yesterday was a today for somebody too. I have met carers and I have listened to feedback from them. I know of carers who passed away ahead of the person for whom they were caring. Caring is a difficult job. We must acknowledge the great work done by carers. They work for their welfare payment and they save the State significant money.

What is clear from listening to so much feedback is that the needs of carers and those being cared for, are not all the same, yet they all get the same grant payment. It is clear that some carers work full-time besides caring for a person. Some, like Senator Mary Ann O'Brien, care for a person 24 hours a day.

If we are to be fair and just, we would acknowledge that one size of a grant does not fit all needs. From listening to the former Senator Niall Ó Brolcháin on the Galway Bay FM on Monday morning and from reading his account in the Sunday Independent, it is clear that his wife's caring for the needs of their autistic son is full-time. I have a request to make of the Minister in this respect. As others have said, this grant does is not due to be paid until June. Will the Minister give a commitment that on Committee Stage that we would drill down and examine the impact this cut will have on carers? It was said on Second Stage yesterday that perhaps that money should be spent on providing services. There will absolutely be respite care in order that carers can take a break. It is only by having those breaks they can continue caring and that they would get the sustenance and have the well-being to do so. I ask the Minister to examine that-----

A Senator:

Hear, hear.

Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----in view of the fact that all needs are not the same. One size does not fit all but the way we are dealing with this is as if it does, and that in itself is wrong.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It seems a fundamental unfairness to target carers for what, along with the back to school allowance, is the largest cut to anybody in this budget. The question is why were they targeted? Carers make a contribution, the value of which has doubled since 2006 when it was ¤2.5 billion. Some 900,000 hours of caring are given every day and the value of that is equivalent to a third of the total annual cost of the HSE. Why were carers targeted for the largest cut? That is a fundamental unfairness in the budget. The Seanad is called upon today to ask the Government to halt and think again.

Why was this specific cut included in the budget given that the health Estimate for next year includes a figure ¤550 million, which is completely nebulously described as savings from Croke Park? It seems that in the budget the Government had to say it was taking this amount off carers. There is a fundamental dishonesty at the heart of the Government in that when its members talk about the fairness of the budget and in aiming to prove that fairness they must refer to Fianna Fáil budgets going back to 2008 and to tax measures which do not come into effect until 2014.

Why is this cut coming into effect now, hurting the most vulnerable, caring and decent people in society when some of the tax measures which will slightly offset the unfairness of the budget will not come into effect for at least 12 months? Let us consider carefully the effect of our rejection of this matter and this section, to which many Senators have referred? Seanad Éireann does not hold the purse strings. That is not our job, it is the job of Dáil Éireann. We should be able to say to Dáil Éireann - "think again". The effect of voting against this section is simply to say to Dáil Éireann "think again". We are a brake on the Executive and the dominant parties in the Lower House of Parliament. Even if this measure were delayed for 90 days it would have zero financial implications upon the State.

John Gilroy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not true.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As Senators have rightly pointed out on this section, the respite care grant is paid in June. It will be paid in June regardless of what we do at whatever level the Government decides but at least if we say "call a halt to this, tóg sos, tóg go bog é" we can ask them to reconsider the cut and its fundamental unfairness. That is all we can do in this Seanad. We cannot write a cheque. We cannot dictate to the Dáil what it would decide on this grant but we can ask its members to think again. That is a fundamental and solemn duty we have, which should not have the consequences, being spread on Twitter and the media today, about TDs and Senators being expelled from political parties. "Think again" is all this Chamber can say. I urge my colleagues to say "think again" to Dáil Éireann on section 5 of the Social Welfare Bill.

Jimmy Harte (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister is welcome. It is not easy to stand up in the Chamber and deal with this and no one here is welcoming any reduction in the respite care grant. The centenary of the First World War is not too far away and I have previously said in the Seanad that one of the most telling epitaphs of the First World War was: "For your tomorrow, we gave our today." The previous Fianna Fáil-led Government borrowed money beyond the realms of decency and I paraphrase that quote and put it to the Fianna Fáil members that: "For our today, we took away your tomorrow", which is what it did to the children of this country. It borrowed money that future generations, who are not yet born, will have to pay back because it wanted to buy elections. We are here today-----

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the Senator to speak to section 5.

Jimmy Harte (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----because Bertie Ahern was elected three times and the Members opposite were the people who carried him shoulder high.

A Senator:

We are dealing with the respite care grant.

Jimmy Harte (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to talk about the respite care grant and the spending measures the Minister introduced for the children plus initiative for the school meals programme, which is part of the positive spending in the budget the Minister has brought in. It is very easy to say that the money can be found somewhere else but no one on the opposite side has yet said where the social welfare budget can be reduced.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did. I made it quite clear.

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the Chair to be consistent. I was ruled out of order.

Jimmy Harte (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know personally what is involved as there is autism on both sides of my family. It is difficult for my sister and my wife and family but they are positive in their outlook on this budget because they feel they have good services. They are feeling the pinch but we can live in the Sinn Féin fairy land and the Fianna Fáil borrow land until we end up back in the same position.

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is more Labour nightmare land.

Jimmy Harte (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have Sinn Féin, which is the right wing party in Strabane and the left wing party in Lifford, and we all know that. If one goes to the Ballycolman Estate in Strabane-----

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are on section 5.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are in the Republic of Ireland.

Jimmy Harte (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is related to the respite care grant. Lifford and Strabane are the one community.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator, on section 5, please.

Jimmy Harte (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Lifford and Strabane used to be in the one parish.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator, on section 5.

Jimmy Harte (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I support the Minister in this respect. No one can say it is a good day for the country when the respite care grant is being cut but we must look on the positive side of the budget. The Minister's task was that if funding was not reduced in one area it would be reduced in another area. I still have not heard anyone say which part of the social welfare budget could have been reduced.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator will be ruled out of order.

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We were ruled out of order.

Jimmy Harte (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are many views in the House on how that can be done. The Minister has grappled with this problem for months, as has the Government. It is a difficult task for anyone but it is a very easy task to challenge the Senators here. I take exception to someone saying; "where are all the Labour Senators today?". I could very well throw back the commment: "where are a lot of the Senators most days?" when we are in here there might be only-----

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not related to the section; we are on section 5.

Jimmy Harte (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the section, respite care is very important for a family who needs it. Equally the whole package is important to the family. To protect the whole package, if reductions in some parts are needed we have to move with them. I want to be judged on this not tomorrow or next weekend but in two or five years time when the public will judge us and say that this was a good Government because Fine Gael and Labour in the past have cleaned up the mess that the people opposite created. I am ashamed to say it but we are now doing it again.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Senator Crown.

John Crown (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will not get involved in any recrimination, name calling or umbrage. I know the Minister is a caring person. I also know she is not an unthoughtful person. In the big spectrum of contemporary politicians she would be from a tradition that puts some thought and - to use what is considered a bad word but it should not be - "ideological" inspiration into how she acts. I am not being critical of anyone, it is just the way history has evolved here over the past 90 odd years; there was a certain amount of flip-flopping, especially in times of recession, and parties that are in government get the task of cutting and parties that are in opposition get the task of being suffused with umbrage. That is the way it is. No matter which side of the House one is on, depending on which part of the job one has at a particular time in history, it is always a little galling to hear the other group express their umbrage and hold one personally to blame.

In the trajectory of the history of our republic, we have plenty of blame to be shared. Every penny the Minister has to cut is associated with hardship for the person in receipt of it and, in the case of the every penny the Minister spends, it is hardship for the person whose opportunity cost is not met by spending it elsewhere. There is a finite amount of money to go around and the Minister has been dealt a terrible deck of cards. She found herself coming into a caring ministry at a time when demand for services underwent a sudden, dramatic and nearly unprecedented increase, which coincided with an unprecedented decline, even in international terms, in the revenue base from which she operates. This is an extraordinary situation and cannot be met easily. It is like trying to keep afloat in a perfect storm while clutching at the straw that, at some point in the future, we will get a renegotiation of bank debt.

It is a special case and I have had multiple representations made to me by people across the social spectrum, from well-off people, those who are not, and those who are looking after an elderly relative or a young child facing no future. Most of us who are parents know what it is like to have a helpless young child whose nappy needs to be changed and who needs to be hand fed. I am not preaching to the Minister because she knows this. In the case of many of the people we are talking about, the phase of nappies and hand feeding never ends. It goes on not for two or three years but for 30 or 40 years. The frustration of trying to deal with people who cannot communicate because they cannot speak, which will end in the case of normal children when they reach three or four years of age and start making their own opinions well known, will not end in the case of many of these folks.

As a doctor, I do not deal with those kinds of patients but I deal with cancer patients who may be in the final stages of their lives. I see them for an intense exposure of ten to 15 minutes and then I move on. They do not move on and the person who is with them, who I am talking to about tablets, pills and the necessity to turn up for tests or scans, does not move on either. That is their life sentence until the life ends. This is a special case but there are many special cases.

I hinted at this point yesterday in our short exchange and I hope to amplify the point today. The Minister did not do this because she is unkind, because I know she is not unkind. She did not do it because she is unthoughtful, because I know she is not unthoughtful. When she thinks more about the economic implications of the measure, a case can be made that this may not save the money she thinks. People talk about not receiving the carer's allowance driving them into illness, which is theoretical but could potentially happen. What does happen on a daily basis is that when we in the hospital try to discharge someone with cancer or another chronic illness, we find that we do not have good stepdown facilities. We do not have convalescent homes and other facilities. Very often, someone stays in hospital for one, two or three days more because the carer is not ready for the person to come home. Provisions are not in place. A family told me they were at the end of their rope because they had another sick relative at home taking up all of their attention. Every time it happens, it costs the Exchequer between ¤500 and ¤1,000 for the patient's inpatient day.

I will make some suggestions about where the money could be found. I hinted at it yesterday. The Minister should discontinue every public relations contract in the public service. No public servant needs a PR contract.

Mary White (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

John Crown (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Every public servant and every Minister should speak for themselves. Every chief executive officer in a Department in the Civil Service should be given the job in rotation once a week of taking a press conference and answering questions unspun. We should end mandatory retirement so that people who wish to continue working do not become dependent on the State. We should have a once-off Celtic tiger windfall tax for people who made large profits on real estate during the boom years. We hear all the hard stories about people wiped out by the boom years but an awful lot of people made money. I am not a fan of wealth taxes because people should pay tax once on the money they have but this is a national emergency.

People like me, who have large incomes of hundreds of thousands of euro, should be charged more income tax. It is not widely known but Irish consultants, uniquely, had a 4% increase in income tax last week. None of us is complaining about it and I would be happy if the Minister added 1% more to get rid of measures such as this. The Minister should also fire a few quangos and allow for early redemption of the ¤100 billion in pension assets largely held outside the State. There is a tax incentive for the assets to remain outside the State when people often desperately need the money. They cannot wait to retire because they may lose their homes to negative equity or their business to a failure of credit from the banks. There are many measures that can be taken. In one fell swoop we could fix this problem by cutting one half of the ¤55 million we spend every year on greyhounds and dogs.

Aideen Hayden (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My first comment on some Members' contributions is that they have given the Minister suggestions on how to save money but none of the suggestions address money from her Department. Senator Crown's suggestions come from the Department of Health and the suggestions of Senator Darragh O'Brien come from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Other suggestions relate to the Department of Finance but none of them relates to the Department of Social Protection.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That does not matter.

Aideen Hayden (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No one has told the Minister for Social Protection who they would like her to cut within the Department of Social Protection in order to amend the proposals being discussed today.

David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a silly argument.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Hayden, without interruption.

Aideen Hayden (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have listened to many genuine contributions as well as much hyperbole and purple passages. The hyperbole and purple passages have particularly come from the Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin Members.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are discussing section 5.

Aideen Hayden (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I resent Members using carers for political purposes.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is outrageous.

Mary White (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How dare Senator Hayden.

Aideen Hayden (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is obscene.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are discussing section 5.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of order, that remark should be withdrawn unless the Senator identifies who she is talking about.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator O'Brien should resume his seat. That is a political charge.

Mary White (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of order, I demand that Senator Hayden withdraws that statement. I spent two full days protesting with the carers in the street. I have never been so moved by what I heard. How dare Senator Hayden speak like that.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator White should resume her seat.

Aideen Hayden (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I support the comments made by Senator Healy Eames when she identified some of the measures taken by the previous Government with regard to carers in a previous budgets. The previous Government made cuts in the budget with respect to carers.

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Government can reverse them.

Aideen Hayden (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

According to budget 2013, the Government will pay ¤775 million on care in the State. I made the point on the Order of Business that, later, we will examine the legislation on property tax in this country. The property tax will raise ¤200 million in half a year and ¤500 million in a full year. It will be levied on every home in the country and will raise less money than the Government will spend next year on the carers' budget. It is obscene to suggest the Government does not care about carers and the issues they face.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No one said that.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Hayden, on section 5.

Aideen Hayden (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is very easy for Members to say that Members on this side do not care about the situation. Of course we do.

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We never used the word "care", we just said it was a bad decision.

Aideen Hayden (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I can cite my circumstances and the circumstances of other Members on this side of the House. I am sure the Minister has her personal story. The commitment given by the Minister to review the respite care situation is important. I have had representations made by constituents and they did not focus on the loss of ¤324 but on the lack of respite care available. The Minister has agreed to review the provision and I commend her for it. The position of carers would be significantly improved by such a review.

A number of Senators rightly pointed out that people receive respite care and use it for the provision of basic necessities. That is not the function of the respite care grant.

Mary Ann O'Brien (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is the function of the Minister for Health.

Aideen Hayden (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If it is the case that carers are being forced to use-----

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is it a point of order?

Mary Ann O'Brien (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That would be for the Minister for Health, not the Minister for Social Protection.

Aideen Hayden (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The point I am making is that I have every confidence in the Minister for Social Protection. If it is the case that the grant must be used to pay for basic necessities, there is no better person in this room than the Minister to ensure a decent review that will result in affected people being looked after.

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Having listened to the debate, I am taken aback by some of the political charges being made. This is not about political charges but about legislation affecting 77,000 carers. No Member from Sinn Féin, the Independents or Fianna Fáil made any political attacks on or charges against any member of the Government parties. We are not here to do that today but to stand up for the carer's allowance and respite care grant.

In 1843, Charles Dickens wrote the famous novel A Christmas Carol, one of whose characters is Scrooge.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are on section 5.

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Let me read a couple of words into the record:

The cold within him froze his old features, nipped his pointed nose, [...] made his eyes red, his thin lips blue; and spoke out shrewdly in his grating voice.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On section 5.

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I read these lines because-----

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can we have order in the House? Quite a number of Senators have indicated they wish to speak. I would like Senators to be courteous enough to allow them to say what they have to say.

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Although what I am saying on behalf of carers might not be what Members on the other side of the House want to hear, my voice deserves to be heard in addition to that of every other Member.

Terry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appeal to the Minister and the Government Senators not to inflict Scrooge-like words on carers this Christmas. This is effectively what they will do if this section of the legislation is voted through by Fine Gael and the Labour Party.

Carers play a pivotal role. Over the course of this debate today and yesterday, this has been outlined by many Members. My mother is a carer who cares for a 96-year-old woman who lives at the bottom of Muckish Mountain. I am proud of every carer, including my mother. I am proud of parents who care for children who can eat only through a straw or tube. I visit houses where I see the great work carers do daily. The Carers Association deserves our full respect, as do all carers. Nobody should cast aspersions to the effect that such comments are being used to make political points.

This matter is very simple. Members have asked where the money would come from. Proposals were made in the Department of Social Protection this year to cut the budget by ¤390 million. Let nobody be fooled: it is a Government decision on how to reduce the deficit by ¤3.5 billion, irrespective of the Department in which the cuts are made. Three proposals by Fianna Fáil would have saved ¤400 million and allowed-----

John Gilroy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They were not costed. The Senator should return with the costed figures.

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A universal social charge increase of 3% on PAYE workers earning over ¤100,000 would yield ¤200 million.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator is making a Second Stage speech. We are on section 5.

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A tax on high-salt and high-sugar foods would yield ¤100 million.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator is ignoring section 5.

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A tax on the tobacco industry, as supported by the Irish Cancer Society, would yield ¤100 million.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator made those points in his Second Stage speech.

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

These savings total ¤400 million. That is where the money would come from. Senator Crown made other proposals, with which I agree. Other Senators made proposals also and I spoke today the Order of Business on yet another. There are alternatives and it is a question of choices. Why should the most vulnerable, who are probably the least vocal, pay the price for some of the bad decisions that were taken during the course of the boom? While one can cast aspersions politically and blame former politicians ? that is fine ? we should not take it out on those who are caring for the most vulnerable and needy.

My colleague from Donegal on the other side of the Chamber can shout and cast all sorts of aspersions but I would much rather he voted today against the cuts. If he does so, perhaps the 3,500 carers in Donegal will respect him more. Today, we have a great opportunity to rectify the standing of this House by protecting carers. The buck rests with the Senators on the other side of the House. Let us see what happens later.

Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am glad to have the opportunity to say a few words in this important debate. I regret we did not have a sufficient opportunity to do so yesterday on Second Stage.

I have listened to the debate in the Chamber and watched it in my office on the monitor. At times it was enlightening and at other times it was rather depressing. It was enlightening because many Members have brought to the Chamber their sense of deep and genuine concern for carers and their awareness of their importance. The debate has been a little depressing because we reverted to the normal Punch and Judy politics, name-calling and charades that were responsible for our having had to have this sort of budget and the current economic mess.

The challenge for the Minister and other Members is to examine how we can proceed and ensure fairness for every social sector, not only in respect of carers. From listening to what is said, the Minister will learn much. She will have heard some of the options that could be considered for future Social Welfare Bills. Given the considerable public demand for reform in addition to change and for new ideas rather than new faces in old jobs, it disappoints me, almost two years after the general election, that we are still practising a form of politics, political management and government that has quite clearly not worked.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are on section 5.

Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On section 5, we are talking about a reduction in the number of carers. If one does not want to reduce the carer's allowance, one must suggest a cut in another area. On numerous occasions over the past 12 months, I have asked that, instead of debating the budget for this Social Welfare Bill when the horse has bolted, we should have substantive and meaningful debate months in advance.

Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have had it.

Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am disappointed that our debates have been brief. The Minister for Social Protection and other Ministers who have been to the House have argued that we will require substantive debate weeks and months in advance of next year's budget. I spent many years in opposition and know the role of the Opposition is to say "No" when the Government says "Yes". If the Government brings forward difficult proposals, such as that on the carer's allowance, we need the Opposition not only to say "No" but also to highlight what it would do instead. It is much too easy simply to say "No", that cuts are bad and that one is in favour only of good measures. I would like the Opposition to have the opportunity to put on the record where it would find the money. When we all calm down a little and try to put in place structures for next year and thereafter, we will certainly need to change our budgetary structure.

I acknowledge the extremely difficult position in which the Minister finds herself. There is no point in talking history because the public is concerned about today and tomorrow, not yesterday. It is important to acknowledge that the role played by carers is of great economic and social significance. We have made progress on nursing homes and subventions but we must value carers. Every carer is not only providing care but also making a significant statement about values in this country.

Carer's allowance, carer's benefit and the respite care grant have genuinely made a difference. If the Cathaloirleach checks the record, he will see that nobody in this House has spoken more about carers and the need for a new carer's strategy than me. I am not standing up at the last minute to comment because my record speaks for itself. Great changes need to be made to the system, the means test, guidelines and regulations, as I have stated previously. I appreciate why the Minister has had to take this distasteful measure, but how do we proceed? Notwithstanding what some of my colleagues have said, it is vital to put a new system in place to debate the options. Announcing the budget on a Wednesday, to be followed by the Social Welfare Bill on a Thursday, may have been sufficient in the Ireland and the political system of old, but the system is not fit for purpose in the new structure and society we are trying to build. Can we learn anything in this difficult situation? At least let us all recognise that we need a broader and more indepth debate on the choices to be made, the options available and the difficulties faced. I recognise the politics and the need to pass the Bill. However, we must stop the name calling and practise more mature, sensible and realistic politics. That is what the public demands; it is tired of Punch and Judy politics.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister whom I have got to know in the past seven years because we sat beside each other at a committee. I regard her highly and know that she listens. Today she will have listened and learned. I have been present for the two and a half hours of this debate and listened and learned. I have listened to the stories told, many of which I knew. Senator Mary Ann O'Brien talked about her experiences, while Senator John Crown and others also spoke about theirs. Recently I was in a house with a carer and saw the need for and the benefit gained from a respite care allowance.

Yesterday I spoke about Members of the Oireachtas having a responsibility to run the State in a manner on which we could look back with pride because we had kept it safe. I said that I intended to support the Minister on the Bill and hoped we could make positive changes to it in the Seanad. I believe she has listened to us carefully today. Senator Fidelma Healy Eames has pointed out that the legislation will not come into operation until 1 June. Therefore, the Minister has six months to think about what she has learned from us today. She will have everybody's support if she agrees that the Bill is not the right way to go. Of all of the items contained in it the respite care grant has been the focus of attention.

Senator David Norris has said the Seanad needs to earn people's respect and trust, but we must respect the responsibility we have been given. Sometimes we must pass legislation, even if it is tough. I recall my experience in business when I made mistakes and put off making decisions because I thought that there might be another way. Unfortunately, the problems always became worse and eventually one had to take a step, which might have meant a sector had to be closed, resulting in a loss of jobs. It was then that I realised that I should have faced up to the challenge earlier.

Senator Paul Bradford said we should have debated the measures in the Bill and done so well ahead of time. If we had had more time to debate the Bill, most of it would have remained intact. However, this aspect would not have remained in it because the Minister would have been influenced by the depth of feeling shown and decided against its inclusion. I shall support the Bill because I am confident that the Minister will do something about the respite care grant when she has time to consider the matter. When we finish the Committee Stage debate, I would like to hear her say she intends to do everything she can to take account of the depth of feeling shown and the emotions expressed today. The Seanad places its trust in her to ensure the legislation will be something of which we can both be proud. If she does not deal with section 5, she will not be proud of herself. I am confident, therefore, that she will do something about it in the months ahead. I do not know if she will be able to do so today, but I hope she will in time.

Yesterday I told the Seanad I would support the Bill. Members of both Houses have a responsibility to make tough decisions, even though they are unpopular. On this occasion the cut to be made is unpopular. If we are to be a successful nation and get ourselves out of difficulty, we must make tough decisions. We all rely on the Minister in this regard. I gather from what has been said she has six months in which to put the matter right and I hope this debate has helped her to move in the right direction.

Ivana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Like Senator Feargal Quinn, I have been present throughout the debate and listened carefully. I agree with him that we have had an instructive and informative debate, with some passionate and thought-provoking contributions. I agree with Senator Paul Bradford on the need for advance notice of measures. I am a member of the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality and recently we learned about the Finnish system under which committees have a certain budget. For example, for a period of months the social protection committee will debate, on a cross-party basis, where cuts and savings can be made and where money should be spent. That model is infinitely more preferable to the one we have inherited and kept by virtue of tradition. I hope we will examine the system next year and introduce something closer to the Finnish model under which debate takes place in advance of the announcement of measures and legislation.

Other colleagues have mentioned where savings can be made. Senator John Crown, in particular, raised the issue of subsidies for the greyhound and horse sectors. I agree with him and have raised the issue in the past.

Yesterday the Minister stated she wished she did not have to make cuts to social welfare payments. She pointed out that nobody ever wanted to cut social welfare payments for its own sake. Everyone, on both sides of the House, will agree that she has been a champion for the social protection budget. She has had the remarkable achievement of securing an extra ¤150 million this year. She has also managed to preserve the basic rates of social welfare, including the weekly carer's and domiciliary care allowance payments. These achievements are a testament to her work. It is also important to note that she has managed to secure funding for 10,000 additional job activation places and ¤30 million for 6,000 child care places for the children of low income families and school meals in disadvantaged communities. We must acknowledge her work and that it is a balancing act.

With regard to section 5, we regret that the cut must be made. Senator Feargal Quinn has said it will be six months before the cut takes effect. There are constructive things we can to do ameliorate its impact. All of us respect and acknowledge the enormous work done by carers. As Senator Aideen Hayden has pointed out, the Government has spent more on carers than any other Government. The cost this year is ¤775 million. It is important to note how much the work of carers is valued. We can, therefore, examine ways to ameliorate the impact of the cut. Last week in this House I pointed out that many carers were concerned about the provision of respite care places. There are huge gaps in provision in areas such as south Dublin and Dún Laoghaire. It is a real issue for carers across the country. The Minister has agreed to carry out an interdepartmental survey, encompassing the HSE and her Department, early in the new year to identify where the gaps are in the provision of respite care places.

As Senator Moloney said in the debate last night, that would be an important measure to undertake and I very much hope we will see that early in the new year. Also, Senator Moloney's suggestion that organisations providing support and respite services to families be invited to make application for some of the additional 10,000 job activation measures could serve in a practical way to address the needs of carers in securing respite places. The Seanad must examine in a constructive way how best to tackle the difficulties faced by carers and how to address some of the real issues that arise in practice for carers. That is hugely important and I look forward to further debates in this House on that issue and on reform of child benefit that the Minister promised us also.

Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is right and proper for us, as Members of the Seanad, to stand up for the most vulnerable and the most courageous section of our society. To suggest that in some way that is hyperbole is difficult to accept and very disappointing because it is evident that that is used as an evasion in this debate.

I was very taken by the contributions of the Independent Senators. In many ways they have brought a new freshness to this Chamber because it cannot be easy for them, having been given the gift of a seat by the Taoiseach, to be prepared to put the head above the parapet and, with their particular expertise and experience, to come in here and provide leadership, which is what they are doing now on the floor of the Chamber.

Prior to the budget I had stated in the House that I hoped it would be a fair budget by making those who had the most pay the most. That has not happened in this case. The very people who are not capable of making a sacrifice because they do not have the wherewithal to do it are being asked to make a sacrifice. Senator John Crown is 100% correct, and I do not accept the argument about increasing income tax affecting employment. The same applies to VAT and to any other charge. What would be wrong with putting an extra 1% or 2% on every one of us in this House who could well afford to pay it and on many other people outside it? If we did that we would not have to argue here about a saving of ¤26 million which will affect the most vulnerable people in society.

I watched Miriam O'Callaghan on an RTE programme last night. It would bring tears to one's eyes to see a mother on her own looking after a 15 year old girl who could not talk, walk or look after herself. In the name of the heavens, why would we throw about accusations and recriminations of partisanship and politics when we are dealing with human issues? We are dealing with humanity. I would still hope that not one or two of the Government Senators but perhaps all the Senators will say that they will do the right thing for once-----

Mary White (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----for people who need them to do it. They will not find the carers in large numbers out on the streets. Why? They cannot leave their homes; they must stay at home and look after their loved ones. Very often the numerical strength can give focus to budgets but people like the carers seem to have been made cannon fodder of on this occasion.

I fully agree with the compliments paid to the Minister. I paid the same compliments when she was in the House on the last occasion. She would be my example of a caring Minister in society, and she has always proved that. I know she had to deal with the Department of Finance and all the other fiscal measures as well but it does not mean she is defeated or that she has done wrong by doing a U-turn. We have all done U-turns in times. We have all voted against the Whip when that was necessary. I have done it, and I hope I will have the courage to do it in the future if I have to do it again.

What is this Whip? Why should it be something that puts humanity and compassion on one side but tells us we must do what we are told by political masters on the other side? That is not acceptable. It is not good for democracy. It is not good for ourselves as a people because we are only robots when we do that. We leave this Chamber wondering if we have disgraced ourselves again. I hope that the pleas made here today, which were genuine, sincere and not an effort to score points, will be heard. It was not about that. We were giving a voice to the people who have no voice.

I mentioned a case highlighted on a television programme last night. The Minister could name hundreds if not thousands of similar cases. Those people are in their homes as we speak. They feel isolated yet they are wonderful people. They have outstanding courage. They have commitment. They did not run away from their responsibilities. Is that not what we want as a people? Is that not what we are asking people to do in this time of recession? We should show them now that we respect what they have done. They are not sending their loved ones into institutions. They are not sending them to hospitals. They are not disappearing and leaving them behind. They are standing their ground on behalf of their loved ones. We should be rewarding or at least acknowledging that.

I do not accept that savings of ¤26 million, considering the size of the budget, cannot be found. It is almost obscene for us to be getting a monthly cheque and putting it into our bank account when we know the suffering of those people on the ground.

Mary White (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Would it not be wonderful for us not to guarantee the future of the Seanad or try to prove ourselves but to show that humanity does not recognise political demarcation? That is what we have to show. This is one case in which we should do that. It is notable that out of all the austere elements in the budget one rises to the top, lifted by humanity throughout the entire country. Senator Darragh O'Brien made the point this morning that he has not met one single person in his constituency or otherwise who agrees with what is happening here, even though all those constituents are suffering.

I make two pleas today. First, we should stand together as a body of people who are committed to doing what is right. Second, by all means give support to the Minister whom I admire, but let us hope that in the new year there will be an announcement that this issue has been revisited and for once we have stood up and did what was decent and dignified for our own people. This may be the last opportunity to do it. We are the last bulwark in this regard. We should not misuse or abuse that today but do what is right.

James Heffernan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

After much reflection on this Social Welfare Bill I have made the decision not to support some of the provisions contained in it. My gut feeling at the outset was that some of them, specifically the blanket cut in child benefit and the cut in the respite care grant, were wrong. A solemn pledge was made not long ago as I was travelling door to door and meeting people in my own area of Kilfinane, Kilmallock, Bruff, and all areas throughout my constituency and the county of Limerick. My party said we would not cut child benefit. That pledge is now broken and in good conscience I cannot be party to that. I promised people in desperate circumstances, hard-working, middle income earners, that I would do what I could to make things better for them. There is an inherent unfairness in hitting carers and children, regardless of their personal circumstances, especially when there was a choice to be made. A temporary solidarity measure would have been to tax high earners but that was decided against.

I urge those on high incomes who are in receipt of these payments to consider giving them back if they do not need them.

I will remain a Labour Party man and will commit all my efforts to addressing and reversing what I see as unjust cuts, especially those that are harshest on middle and low-income, hard-working families. It is not a decision I have taken lightly and it is not an easy one. I respect the Minister's reform agenda and I wish her well in what is a difficult job. I have consulted widely on this decision both within my constituency and community and among the broader Labour Party family. Ultimately, this decision is my own. I do not fly any flag of convenience. I have the utmost respect for my Seanad colleagues and all my colleagues in the Labour Party. What I ask is that my decision will also be afforded the same respect.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Bravo.

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is maith liom go bhfuil mé ag fáil deise labhairt ar an Bhille seo anocht, mar ní raibh dóthain ama againn aréir le go bhfuighinn isteach air. Is cinnte go bhfuil muid ag plé an Bhille is tábhachtaí a phlé muid i saol an tSeanaid seo. B'fhéidir go bhfuil muid tagtha ag an pointe is tábhachtaí sa Bhille sin, mar is cinnte i mbéal an phobail gur í an gearradh atá á dhéanamh ar na cúramóirí an gearradh is mó atá ag tarraingt cainte agus atá ag déanamh imní do dhaoine. Is é an gearradh is mó ar a bhfuil na meáin ag tabhairt airde. Is léir sin ón aird atá á tabhairt acu orainn inniu, seachas laethanta eile. Is é an gearradh is mó é freisin do na daoine atá ag scríobh chugainn. Táim tar éis a bheith ag cuid mhaith cruinnithe poiblí le seachtain anuas agus nílim ag iarraidh mo ghlór fein a chur chun cinn ag an bpointe seo, ach glórtha na daoine a labhair liom.

I attended a number of public meetings during the week and was asked to convey a message to the Minister and her colleagues by people who are carers or who are in receipt of the respite care grant. A young man in Longford who has a disability asked me not to take away his mother's carer's grant because she cannot cope without it. Another mother at that meeting whose child needs special shoes that cost ¤460 was going to use the extra money in the respite care grant to buy the shoes but she will not have the money to buy them. I have a note from a parent of a special needs child who asked me to relay this message:

The respite care grant is not used for a jolly holiday or anything of the sort. The respite care grant is used throughout the year to pay for therapies my son sorely needs which are not available publicly, among other things, essential to providing my son with the best chance he has of not being a burden to the State in the future in the form of residential care. This minuscule saving to the State coffers will ultimately cost the Exchequer infinitely more in years to come.

I am a carer to a nine year old boy who has autism. The recent budget has hit us very hard, we were already just getting by, I have no idea how we will survive financially. The huge cut to the respite care grant, just has me in tears, I use that money to keep my car on the road and oil in the tank (my son has mobility issues, so a car is a necessity). I didn't want to be a carer, but that is where I have found myself due to my son's disability, and there's no better person for the job than me his mother, I love my son dearly and just want what is best for his future, it would be nice though to have a little support from our Government to help me do my job, instead of being made feel like a scrounger. I worked Full-time for as long as I could but had no option but to give up my job and become my son's carer.

We had an interesting debate on the JobBridge scheme where the Minister told me about her expertise in accountancy and in business. However, I do not accept that she could not find another way of getting ¤26 million in order that this cut would not have to go through. I accept this is not her decision and that she has been put under constraints due to the economic situation and the Government situation. She was given a budget to disburse through the Government. There are responsibilities specifically in respect of the respite care grant. Senator Ó Murchú put it more eloquently than me when he said we should not make the respite carers the fodder in this political battle, if it is a political battle. I think the Minister would have it within her remit to go back and try to find the ¤26 million elsewhere. If that cannot be done, I find it hard to believe the Government cannot find within the coffers ¤26 million to ensure this cut does not go ahead.

We have put forward proposals, one of which is a wealth tax. If the Minister was to accept it, at the lowest possible scenario it would more than cover four or five of the cuts in the Social Welfare Bill. Therefore, there are options. I do not believe that a person of the Minister's calibre and expertise in business and accountancy could not find that ¤26 million. If the Minister cannot find it within her wont, there is a choice to be made by Senators on the Government side. They have heard all the arguments and have to choose. Senators have made some brave decisions. I commend those decisions being made. Senators have to vote with their conscience and, therefore, have to vote against this section of the Bill because it is unfair on carers.

This will be a seminal moment in the life of the Seanad. I know the eyes of the nation and the media, in particular, are on us. The vote on this section and the vote on the Bill today will be a moment of truth as to whether the Seanad is up to standing up for what is right. It is not about being political, it is about not putting the respite care grant in jeopardy and not making carers pay for the decisions that will be made. If the Minister were to reverse the ¤26 million cut I would call on Sinn Féin members not to jump up and down making political hay on this issue because it is simply the wrong cut. I call on her to intimate to us that she will withdraw it because that would take the pressure off some of her Labour Party Members who have been put under awful pressure on this issue. Most of all it would give relief to those carers who asked me to bring their story to the Minister.

Martin Conway (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have listened with great interest and humility to many of the contributions and, in particular, from my good friend, since becoming a Member, Senator James Heffernan, who took a difficult decision. He is a person I greatly admire and that admiration will continue. I have also listened to contributions from the other side of the House from Members whom I admire. Unfortunately, not all showed the same dignity of purpose as Senator Heffernan. I certainly have a conscience. I am not going to be lectured by anybody on my conscience in terms of doing the right thing for people with disabilities, because for too long people with disabilities have been used as a political football by party politics and politicians in an appallingly crass fashion. If we can do anything for the dignity of the Seanad it would be to cut out that nonsense because it is appalling.

People with disabilities suffer much in trying to get on an equal footing and to be treated with respect. What does a debate such as this do? It only creates barriers, it does not diminish or eliminate them, because one is trying to create a situation that does not exist. The Minister, Deputy Joan Burton, is probably one of the most reforming Ministers the country has ever seen. She has been placed in an invidious position where nobody in politics in recent times has been placed. She has been forced to find savings where it is practically impossible to find them.

She has done it with a heavy heart because it is not in her nature to cut anybody's allowance. She has had no choice. I have heard people talk about the importance of the respite care grant to caring families. It is more important to some families than to others and it is the nature of universal payments that there are some in receipt of the grant who should not get as much as they do. There are people in receipt of the respite care grant who should be getting more.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a dangerous line to take.

Martin Conway (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a lack of proportionality in dealing with the respite care grant and it will have to be reformed. I will conclude as I am not going to deprive other Members of the right to speak. However, I take it personally when Members question the presence of Government Senators during debates. I challenge any Member on my attendance record, contributions and voting record in the House which will stand square vis-à-vis the record of any other Member.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are on section 5.

Martin Conway (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The charge should be withdrawn. It is an insult to the House.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is irrelevant.

Martin Conway (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Finally, If the respite care grant debate is what is required to save the Seanad, we are going nowhere.

Marie Moloney (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not get to finish my speech on Second Stage as time ran out. I was going to finish with what Senator Bradford said on budgets. Why are they presented at such a late stage as faits accompli when we have to put them through? Everybody knows the contents of the budget through the media. We do not get told, but the newspapers do. Why not bring the measures before the House so that we can debate them? I have heard constructive ideas from all sides in the House today and if the debate was held in advance those ideas could be picked up on. The budget would be more acceptable to Members if they felt they had an input into it. No Member can say I stood up and threw comments across the House at Fianna Fáil or any other party.

Mary White (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator does not.

Marie Moloney (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not engage in those politics. We were put in the House to do a job and the onus is on us to bring the country back to fiscal sustainability. Fianna Fáil made cuts to carers' allowance and other social welfare benefits because they had to. They did it for the country.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We cut the wealthiest also.

Marie Moloney (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I acknowledge that it was done for the country. This is not about the future of the Seanad or the next election, it is about the next generation. People say it takes courage to vote. It takes courage also to support a measure, particularly when you have worked so hard. As Senator Bradford said, he may have spoken more often about carers because he has been longer in the House, but carers have always been my focus since entering the House.

I met the Carers Association as did everyone else. I have their budget briefing with me and, having gone through it, can say that it includes no mention of the respite care grant. The main concern of the Carers Association was the protection of the half-rate carer's allowance. Carers were extremely worried about it and the Minister did what they asked. I suggested yesterday a way to give something back to carers by putting in place weekly respite for carers who cannot move outside their houses and are there 24/7. We are only talking about the Carers Association sending someone to the house to let the carer go to the dentist, the hairdresser or for a walk. I met a couple who said they would love a night out on the town. All they want is someone to come in at 7 p.m. when their child had gone to bed and sit until midnight. The Carers Association provides that service and I ask the Minister to enhance it. It is a weekly respite rather than a yearly payment and it would be of great benefit to carers. The Opposition does not have a monopoly on meeting carers. I have met carers who are angry. I have met carers who said they could live with the cut to the respite grant provided the respite in St. John of Gods or other institution is maintained. Carers fear that and the threat of a 25% reduction to their respite and school transport for children with special needs. Those possibilities worried some carers more than the reduction in the respite care grant.

It is a difficult decision. There have been some good suggestions in the House, including the ¤55 million in respect of greyhound and horse racing.

Mary Ann O'Brien (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That keeps thousands employed.

Marie Moloney (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is true but it is another day's argument. Money is being spent. Perhaps, a little could be taken from them. We have six months to reflect on the measure before it comes in. I know the Minister. Last year, she made changes when she needed to do so. If in the next six months we can find another way to get ¤26 million, an amendment could be made to reverse the cut. Let us not rule out the idea at this stage. It is something that could be discussed perhaps by the joint committee.

Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I accept the bona fides of the Opposition Members who are for or against the Bill. However, I cannot accept the hypocritical comments from the other side, including the suggestion by one Member that we should not take money from carers and those who need it. Is it amnesia from which that Member is suffering? This budget takes ¤325 from the respite grant whereas Fianna Fáil's last two budgets took ¤850 - ¤16.50 per week - from the carer's allowance itself. Yet, Fianna Fáil is now crying crocodile tears and telling the Government what it should be doing. I have heard the word "shame" used by Members opposite. They should be ashamed to give out about the grant today after what they did to carers and given the state in which they left the country.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You have ignored the wealthy. We targeted the wealthy as well, Maurice.

Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You are like a spoiled child all day, commenting when other Members were speaking.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Cummins, without interruption.

Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sit down and listen to what people have to say. The Senator is interrupting everybody all day. We have been speaking about pre-budget debates, which is something we have had far more of this year than we ever had before. I remind Members that on 18 October 2012 the Minister attended for pre-budget statements on social protection and 12 Members contributed. We did not have the same passion or number of press members in attendance during that debate. Of those 12 Members, not many offered suggestions as to where the Minister could find ¤26 million. That was two months before the budget. Let us cut out the nonsense of not having enough time to speak about these issues prior to the budget. We had time and 12 Members spoke.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One of the Leader's colleagues raised that point first.

Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am interrupted again.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Cummins, on section 5.

Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am speaking to section 5.

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are you sure?

Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sure of a lot more things than you are.

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You should have read our alternative budget proposal which was fully costed and made no cuts to social welfare.

Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not give your name earlier, but you were the one who said you should not take from carers.

Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You should not, but you have.

Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You took ¤850 a year. You have amnesia. When I was made redundant in 1997, I worked for over 18 months with the Carers Association on a FÁS scheme. I was not on the big wages that many charities CEOs receive of ¤100,000 or ¤200,000. I worked on a FÁS scheme. There are many Members who have cared for loved ones down the years.

We do not need any lectures from people on the other side about what carers should and should not be doing. I could name six or seven people in this House, some on this side, who have looked after people with disabilities or who are old and infirm. This is a difficult time for the Government. This is a difficult budget. There are parts of this Bill which many people, including the Minister, find difficult to stomach but hard decisions have to be made. This Government is committed to getting the country back on its feet economically to the point where it can in such situations provide more money. In 2006, at the height of the boom, the respite care grant was much less than ¤1,375. Nobody wants to take these hard decisions but hard decisions have to be made in a budget and in a Social Welfare Bill. I and my colleagues will support the provisions in the Bill in the hope that when things improve, as they will, although some people here might not want them to, we can rectify this situation for the respite care grant.

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As the Minister is aware, the cuts in social welfare and their cumulative effect are a difficult issue for people on both sides of this House and for people outside the House who are struggling. I accept the bona fides of people here if they vote conscientiously whether for or against the Bill. It is very difficult for people to go against the party Whip. Senator James Heffernan has displayed great courage in doing so. It is not easy. I have been in that position and it is difficult when one has allegiances to one's colleagues and one's party. As Senator Cummins said, hard decisions must be taken but within them there are choices. I oppose the choices that have been made, not just this year but in previous years. It was a major mistake for the Government parties to commit to ring-fencing almost 80% of expenditure and say they would not touch social welfare rates or public service pay.

Suicide has been debated many times in this House. People have succumbed to despair because of their financial predicament in recent years. We must not only show empathy with, and sympathy for, those families that have been bereaved but also with those many others who are seriously struggling to make ends meet and worrying about where they will get their next mortgage payment or money to put food on the table. That is the case for many. On the back of my card I have a quotation from Pedro Arrupe "Let there be men and women who will bend their energies, not to strengthen positions of privilege, but to the extent possible to reduce privilege in favour of the underprivileged." I try to live by that principle. I do not always succeed but it is an aspiration for politicians. Sometimes we need some form of idealism to guide us in the decisions we take.

The Minister says she is not cutting social welfare rates but she is. For example, she is cutting child benefit and she is cutting the respite care grant by 20%. That will have an impact on families. If she considers it from the economic point of view, which may well be driving the Government's agenda in many other areas, including social policy, it is imperative that we endeavour to place the burden where it can be carried and not place it on people who are in no position to shoulder this increased pain. This and other decisions that are being taken and have been taken will make it almost impossible for many to deal with these issues in 2013. We will see an increase in the social fallout from this economic crisis in the next 12 months or thereabouts.

The cut in the respite care grant will save ¤26 million. The cut in child benefit will save ¤136 million, making a total of ¤162 million. A 3% increase in the universal social charge for those earning above ¤100,000 would bring in approximately ¤200 million. The Labour Party was right to seek that as our party was right to include it in our budgetary provisions. One of the great imponderables is that increments in the public service have continued since 2008. Ours were stopped in 2008. All public service increments should have been stopped. That would amount to between ¤200 million and ¤250 million a year. A 1% cut in public service pay comes to ¤170 million. A 1% cut across the board in social welfare rates, which would be ¤2 a week, would bring in the guts of ¤220 million. Nobody likes doing these things. We are crucifying a small group of people who make an enormous contribution to the Exchequer. If they did not do the job they do the Minister knows, as do all of us in this House, a huge financial burden would be placed on the State which it would not be able to carry. I appeal to the Minister, who has her heart in the right place and is caring, to take whatever stand is necessary, maybe a stand such as Senator Heffernan has taken. Unless people are prepared to stand up and be counted, the underprivileged, disadvantaged and those who are really suffering will continue to be railroaded. It is time that this stopped.

John Gilroy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have been listening quietly, maybe uncharacteristically, to this debate all afternoon, which has been very informative. Most of the contributions have been genuine and made in good faith and well articulated with passion. The Opposition's job is to hold the Government to account. It is doing a good job of that today. It has put forward several suggestions for alternative savings, such as a wealth tax, increments, horses, advisers, bureaucrats, a sugar tax, a tobacco tax and an increase in the universal social charge, all of which could well be supported. Despite the Minister having saved ¤390 million in her Department, which is spending ¤20.2 billion, the cost of social protection is going up by ¤150 million this year. If the Minister did not make this saving the cost of social protection would increase by ¤500 million. That is the fact.

We could do all that the Opposition suggests, and I think we should do many of these things but we must do them in addition to the other measures. No one will say that we should allow the cost of social protection to grow. Opposition Members will all agree with me on that point. In the 1980s the Labour Party and Fine Gael did not make the necessary decisions. I hate the phrase "hard decisions" because the decision-makers are not affected by the decisions. The hard decisions affect other people. They allowed the deficit to grow until they drove the country almost into the ground. The country is almost in the ground, even moreso than in the 1980s, and we must do these things. If we say that we will not reduce the respite care grant where will we make the savings? Do we make them in the disability sector, in jobseeker's allowance, carer's allowance, rent or lone parent's allowance, or in family income support, domiciliary care or household benefits? No matter where the reductions are made in any of these benefits those affected will say they are unfair. They are certainly unpalatable and no Government, not even that of the Opposition when it was in government, would even dream of making them unless they were necessary.

I recognise that the Opposition Senators are genuine about their proposals and their passion but I dislike their saying that we sheepishly and slavishly follow the Whip. I am not sheepishly and slavishly following a Whip. I have put a great deal of thought into this and have said that I will support the Government. These are unpopular, terrible things to do but I will support them because that is the right thing to do. Senator Ó Murchú said there is a right thing to do. There are many right things to do, one of which is to protect and ring-fence money for one group of people. Difficult as it is, the right thing to do is to put the interests of the country first and support the Government.

Tony Mulcahy (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Moran asked last night if I wanted to say something and I was vacillating whether I would do so. I do not know whether I will hold this together but I will try my best. On 17 March 1992, St. Patrick?s Day, our lives changed forever. My now 20 year old was born. As Senator Cummins has outlined, she is a chronic epileptic and does not really speak. She has a vocabulary of approximately 24 or 25 words. Anyone who wants to tell me or my good wife about caring can go ahead and try. The first day I walked in the back gate here I got a telephone call one hour later to go home because she was in an accident and emergency department following a bad seizure. I will not be lectured on my conscience. I wanted to get that much out of the way.

There are cures and remedies. Before anyone goes home today I ask them to do one thing for me, namely, go to the library and read page two of The Irish Times. That is all they need to do today. There is an article about service providers and carers referring to all the wonderful work of the Sisters of Mercy and Daughters of Charity and the Brothers of Charity. The ¤300 in question would buy my young lady a half a day of care at the Brothers of Charity in Clare. It costs ¤2,800 to open the house there at the weekend. Apart from the epilepsy, my young lady is manageable. She is okay with her friends and they manage in the house. However, we should not be spending ¤2,800 to open the house at the weekend and I said as much to the Minister recently when we were discussing it. The money should follow the client. This is the greatest decisions we could ever make and it is job No. 1. We should buy the service where we want to buy it.

I hope the Cathaoirleach will give me some latitude. The model of service delivery in this country is wrong. Up to now we have fired money at a raft of agencies. They have wonderful and different names. Four of them contacted me in recent weeks about the cut in the carer's allowance and I e-mailed all of them in reply. I asked for a set of their annual accounts, what they were paying the chief executive and what the top ten salaries were. Lo and behold I got no reply and no more contact from them either. However, the details are in the newspaper today. We understand a lady in St. Michael?s House - I will leave her name out of it but she is the chief executive - is earning in excess of ¤200,000. Some ¤75 million is going to that organisation. The Brothers of Charity received ¤187 million and the chief executive earns ¤150,000. The top people in Enable Ireland and the Irish Wheelchair Association earn similar salaries. Under the model of service delivery when these bodies were set up we got money, appointed a chief executive and paid him from ¤80,000 to ¤200,000.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

You are touching the microphone.

Tony Mulcahy (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are people in this House who set up agencies and paid chief executives in excess of ¤80,000. I am a member of a group in Clare. They may speak for themselves if they so wish. They have called me often enough when I was in the House but I am here now. I am a member of a voluntary group in Clare, the Clare Crusaders. A total of ¤260,000 has been raised by the service in Clare and it is run on a voluntary basis. We provide a service to 240 children with not a bob from the State. No one is paid and there is no chief executive. We pay the therapists. The organisation is run in the same was as a school. We set up a board of management and we hire the therapists. However, this will be a cross-departmental issue because ¤2.449 billion is going to these agencies and advocacy groups.

I have referred to advocacy groups already and I wish to put it on the record again today. All the funding going to advocacy groups should be stopped now for the same reason, namely, they do not provide any service. I do not need anyone else to advocate for what my child needs. I would prefer to have the service. The Carers Association was referred to some time ago. I asked what the chief executive of that association received. As far as I know he walked out of one job and into another. This is the type of carry on we find. People should read page two of The Irish Times. If they do they will get a good education about where all the money, some ¤2.449 billion in total, is going. Respite hours are being cut. How did that happen? The staff are still there because we did not let any of them go. We cannot do so because they are covered by the Croke Park agreement. What do they do? They cut the respite hours. They cut ten days per year. There is not much left after that.

I said to Senator Moran that I would say a few words today. I put all of this on the record and I stand over every word I have said. If we do nothing else this year we should ensure the money follows the client. I should be able to buy the service where I want to buy it. It will not be provided to me by the so-called voluntary bodies and service providers. There is nothing voluntary about them and there never was. They are organisations that have ripped off this country for years. We need to put a stop to it and we should do so while we are in government. We should do it now. Members should examine the figures. They are astronomical.

Marie Louise O'Donnell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Follow that.

Michael Mullins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not really possible to follow that. We have had a fantastic debate and education today on where the money is being spent. We have heard many great ideas about how we could spend it more usefully in future. I hope we have started a further conversation with the Minister on how we might address much of the inequity in the social welfare system. There is no doubt that the way we dispense funding within the social welfare budget is inequitable and unfair in many instances. There is no doubt that in the case of the carer's respite grant some are not getting enough but there are many people who are getting more than they should.

Senator Moloney made a fantastic suggestion. The carer's grant is being dropped by ¤325. I put it to the Minister, Deputy Burton, that in some way between now and the coming six months she should see how ¤325 worth of care could be provided through community employment schemes or through the carers' associations or the various community organisations operating so effectively in the country. If the Minister did this she would be doing a great service. The people involved would continue to hold on to the ¤1,350 they have but they would get ¤325 worth of care in the community as well. If the Minister could give an indication that she would look favourably on that I suggest we would all be happy to support this measure in the budget. It would bring fairness and equity into the system.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank all Senators from both sides of the House who contributed because I know how genuinely people feel about this issue. Great credit is due to Irish society for one thing we have done. I listened to Senator Mulcahy talking about his daughter and his family situation. It is true with this House as it is for most of Irish society that at some stage all of us have cared for people or we will do so in future, because it is part of the human condition. In fairness to both sides in a way we are speaking about ourselves, people close to us or people we know or have worked with.

Senator Mulcahy is someone in that situation currently, looking after a cherished child. Let us remember back to 40 years ago to this country. At the time, people with a mild to moderate physical or intellectual disability would have ended up not being in an ordinary primary school with their peers but probably would have been institutionalised especially as they got older, bigger and heavier. Some of the changes are due simply to changes in technology and medical skills and supports. However, there has been another change that reflects rather well on Ireland. No one involved in politics agrees on everything but we have moved forward. Wherever one goes in this country, whether for a social occasion or otherwise, one can meet someone who is a special person.

When we hosted occasions such as the Special Olympics, the entire country celebrated with the participants. That is not the case in every country and it is something we can recognise as an Irish achievement. Some 40 or even 25 years ago many children who were profoundly deaf ended up in schools for the deaf. Nowadays it is relatively unusual for a child who is profoundly deaf to be anywhere other than in a mainstream school with additional support to cope with his or her disability. That is progress.

A Senator asked why we compared ourselves with other countries. We do so in order to mark what we do well and where we can do better. An economist wrote about Greece in one of our newspapers last week after European journalists had been taken on a trip to that country. The concept of a carer's allowance is largely unknown in Greece. It is not that people there do not care for family members but that a structure of support is not available via the social welfare system. The collapse of funding for regional governments in Spain means a considerable number of public servants working in care institutions and hospitals are hardly being paid and, in a couple of cases, are not being paid at all.

Senator Darragh O'Brien asked what was the position of the troika on these matters. Perhaps this question warrants a full debate in the House. To a certain extent, the troika speaks with a forked tongue. It states we can do this, that and the other but that it wants its money back. The agreement with it includes a specific commitment to introduce consolidation measures - troika speak for expenditure cuts - amounting to at least ¤3.5 billion in 2013. This is not negotiable.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We accept that.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With due respect to the various charming people of the troika, this commitment is not negotiable.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I met them.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I lived in Tanzania, a very poor east African country. Like many other countries in Africa in the 1980s, it had to accept the ministrations of the IMF and the position was no different then. If countries borrowed money from the IMF, they had to repay it.

We do not have an option other than getting the country back on its feet because that is the best way to protect social policies across a range of issues. In its most recent report the Commission examined downward adjustments in payment rates in recent years. Although there has been a downward adjustment in payment rates on schemes such as disability allowance, the Commission suggested better calibration of social supports towards those most in need might be required to meet the dual goals of protecting the most vulnerable and ensuring fiscal sustainability, given our demographic pressures. We are being asked to spend our money, such as it is, in the best way possible, but we are also under instruction to achieve financial sustainability. No social welfare change is easy, but the Government has reluctantly attempted to balance it with what was originally intended to be a reduction of ¤540 million. When Fianna Fáil left office, the Programme for National Recovery set out indicative reductions of more than ¤800 million this year.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The four year plan was rejected by the public.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator can check his own documents because they are what we were left with as our legacy of the agreement. We have negotiated it downwards.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That was rejected.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We reduced the figure of ¤540 million to ¤390 million.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister should study her 2007 manifesto. How far back does she want to go? It is a fallacious argument.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Please allow the Minister to speak without interruption.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The troika came here to meet the political parties exactly two years ago. I am not going back very far.

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of order, I do not want to cut across the Minister, but I do not see what this has to do with the section 5. Most other Senators -----

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am trying to answer.

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We were asked to speak to the section.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With all due respect, that is not a point of order. Let the Minister reply.

Marie Moloney (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

She is responding to points raised.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was taken by the fundamental question raised by Senator Darragh O'Brien on what the troika required from Ireland. Some argue that the troika allows us to do whatever we want, but that is not true in terms of structural adjustment programmes around the world.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister is misrepresenting us.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Just let me say -----

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of order, is the Minister saying the Government has no flexibility in its fiscal policies?

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not a point of order.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Government has exercised great flexibility by reducing the figure of ¤800 million in cuts proposed by Fianna Fáil - Senators can check the documents - down to ¤540 million.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I know the documents.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In my case -----

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Was there a specific requirement in the memorandum of understanding to reduce the respite care grant? The Minister is skirting around the question and misrepresenting us.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Please allow the Minister to conclude.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----I went to the gentlemen from the Departments of Public Expenditure and Reform and Finance to negotiate the figure down to ¤390 million. Of course, I would have liked to have reduced it still further.

Senator Mary White spoke about the 5,000 people who received no payment besides the respite care grant. Such individuals are above the income limit for carer's allowance and half rate carer's allowance, which is ¤70,000 for a couple. Therefore, they have access to significant income. Senators have pointed to the importance of the respite care grant to them and that it is an acknowledgement by the State of the care they provide using their own financial resources. During the pre-budget debates in this House we did not spend much time on a realistic discussion of the options available.

Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill claimed that there were no cuts proposed in Fianna Fáil's pre-budget document, but savings of ¤200 million were identified in respect of fraud and abuse of the social welfare system. This year the Department of Social Protection has saved ¤625 million in that regard.

Does it count for troika expenditure reduction purposes? No, it does not. It simply stops further spending. The only way it would count - this is a proposal I made - is if we could recover an increasing amount of those payments that should not have been made. This is covered in section 13 of the Bill. I proposed in the Department's budget that we try to recover at least ¤20 million this year. If we can recover more, some of the possibilities raised by others are open to us. As E. M. Forster says, everything is connected.

The Social Welfare Bill stands as one piece of the jigsaw. It is not possible to remove the respite care grant from the Bill without derailing and delaying the rest of the Bill. This may not be good news for many Members, but it is the constitutional legal fact. Although the grant is not paid until June, removing the provision would give rise to costs. As I said yesterday, the 90-day pause would cost ¤127 million, if it was a full 90-day pause. Unfortunately, that would then need to be found from the rest of the social welfare budget, unless other Departments were willing to give up something from their budgets.

A number of Senators referred to a proposal made by Senator Moloney that we should look at the number of additional places we are securing for local employment initiatives and community employment in order to expand care services. I am open to that. Many of those organisations are involved in providing and assisting with care and in community employment schemes. We propose to provide an extra 2,000 places on community employment and an extra 2,500 places on Tús. If any organisations, family or community centres around the country which provide activities related to older people, children and people with disabilities make proposals for extra places in those areas, I would be happy to consider them seriously.

In May, the Government published the carer strategy. This strategy is important because it brings together a number of themes we have had the opportunity to discuss today. Hand on heart, based on my experience of people I know who care, if a significant sum of money was found to be available tomorrow, my instinct would be to try to solve the issue of the lack of respite care places. This is a major issue for the families I know, including some of my relatives. The way it works now is that carers could phone tomorrow or the next day to make plans to get a number of days' respite for next month or the month after. Some people appear to be scandalised by the fact that some carers get a little bit of time out and use the respite care grant to go on a break. Such breaks are vital. In a family where a carer is caring for somebody with a serious disability, there are often other siblings in the house. It is when the respite care is available that the rest of the family gets some down time, whether in their own home or on a short holiday. Originally, this was the core purpose of the respite care grant.

The Department has done surveys on respite care and it knows that significant numbers of carers spend the grant on ordinary living expenses. However, that is not something that is a matter for this House. We do not ask people how exactly they spend their child benefit. We know that by and large it is spent on children and that families choose different ways to spend it. Most people seem happy that it is spent on children.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I remind the Minister that we are due to conclude at 7 p.m.

Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of order, I am anxious that we dispose of section 5 and would be grateful for the Minister's co-operation in that regard.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is not a point of order. The Minister should continue.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With regard to reform, the home help service, which comes under the remit of the Department of Health, is a vital concern for carers. Home helps are, as Professor Crown will know, very important for older patients and people recovering from surgery at home. The provision of a home care or home help service is vital in helping people to sustain independent living and speed recovery after leaving hospital. I am happy to say the Minister for Health has given me an assurance that the funding for home helps has been fully provided for in his Estimate for 2013.

To return to what Senator Moloney and others said yesterday and today, what is important is that, through co-operation between the Department of Health and the Department of Social Protection, we map out for Ireland what exactly respite provision should involve and how we can improve on it. This is more important for many carers than the respite care grant, although the grant is extremely well received. We have chosen in the budget to put extra funding into 10,000 work activation places and 6,000 child care places in order to provide a base for reform. The key reform required to get the country back on its feet is to get people back to work.

Last night, Senator Ó Clochartaigh was desperately critical of JobBridge and saw no merit in it.

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of order, that statement is incorrect and I ask the Minister to retract it. I never said that at all. She should correct the record.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister without interruption.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Last night, the Senator indicated to me-----

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister should check the record and see exactly what I said. I never said that at all.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are not here to discuss what was said last night. That is just regurgitation. We know what was said last night. This looks very much like a filibuster by the Minister.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Allow the Minister to respond.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was asked to give my closing comments.

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are on section five. We would be happy if the Minister concluded now and allowed us vote on it. She is filibustering.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I remind the House and the Minister that we are due to conclude on this at 7 p.m.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Extra places have been provided in the budget to get people back to work, whether through internships, CE schemes or other community-based schemes. So far, more than 50% of people who participated in the scheme have proceeded to further employment. If we want to right the country's finances-----

Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On a point of order, the Minister is not speaking on the Bill.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I reminded the Minister that we are up against the clock, but she obviously wants to continue.

Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

She is supporting a totalitarian Government. That is what she is doing.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If we want to right the finances of the country so that we can have the social welfare system to which we all aspire, we can only do that by getting businesses back into business and people back to work so that these people and businesses can begin to contribute through taxation. That is how-----

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a question for the Leader. Will the Leader allow an extension of the time for this debate?

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Senator cannot ask a question of the Leader while the Minister is responding. That is inappropriate.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If it is appropriate for the Leader to extend time, I ask him to do so.

Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is how we will protect carers.

In a time of enormous economic difficulty, the fact that the carer's provision has increased this year is important.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry, but I must interrupt the Minister. As it is now 7 p.m.-----

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am asking formally-----

Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That was an outrageous filibuster by the Minister.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When is it proposed to take Report Stage?

Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Tomorrow.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that agreed?

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Let us hope the Seanad is treated a little better tomorrow. It would be very refreshing if the Minister observed the decencies of this House.