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

Under Standing Order 133 I propose a verbal amendment to page 6, line 5, to change the letters "ne" to "ly". I call on one of my colleagues to second the amendment.

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

I have been informed that I cannot accept verbal amendments at this stage. I ask the Senator to outline his amendment again because it is a technical rule.

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

I am relying on Standing Order 133(2) which deals with Fifth Stage. The Standing Order states: "No amendment, not being merely verbal, shall be made to any Bill on the Fifth Stage, but verbal amendments, may be made without notice." Traditionally, verbal amendments in parliaments across the world refer to a number of words. Here I wish to change two letters of the alphabet. On page 6, line 5, I wish to change the letters "ne" to "ly".

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

I cannot accept his amendment.

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

I seek clarification. The Standing Order specifically states that I may give a verbal amendment at Fifth Stage without notice. I have given that and my verbal amendment relates to just two letters of the alphabet.

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

Unfortunately, I must rule against it.

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

We will have to take legal advice on this. The Standing Order is very clear.

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

That is for another day.

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

On a point of order, it is very clear that the Standing Order allows me to make a verbal amendment. This is an abuse of the privilege of Senators which are clearly set out the Standing Order.

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

I have made a ruling and call Senator Cullinane.

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

I wish to make a final contribution on the Bill. I deeply regret the cuts which have been imposed on social welfare recipients.

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

I understand why the Senator wishes to speak at this stage and I shall allow him and any Senator to comment. I ask him to speak about what is contained in the Bill, not what is not in the Bill. The comments must be relevant.

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

On a point of order, this is a very serious development. In all of my time in the House I cannot remember where a verbal amendment was made. I am not saying that attempts have not been made. Under Standing Orders, as far as our reading and interpretation goes, in absolutely clear and simple English it says that "without notice" a verbal amendment can be made.

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

That is not a point of order.

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

It is a point of order because there is a ruling.

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

I made a ruling and I am not going to change it.

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

With respect, the Leas-Chathaoirleach cannot make a ruling without explaining his reason to the House.

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

I made a ruling.

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

You cannot adopt that view. With due respect, you cannot make a ruling unilaterally without explaining it to the House.

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

I have ruled on the matter and ask the Senator to resume his seat.

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

I am sorry but you cannot do so without explaining it to the House.

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

I have ruled on the matter and I call Senator Cullinane.

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

I am sorry, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, but you must explain it to the House.

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

I did explain and I want the Senator to accept my ruling.

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

No, you have not. You just said that you made a ruling.

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

The Clerk, with due respect, has given incorrect advice in this case.

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

I have already ruled on the matter and I ask the Senator to please resume his seat.

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

Verbal amendments can be made without notice and I demand that my verbal amendment be taken at this stage. I demand that you comply with the expressed terms of the Standing Order and put the amendment to the House.

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

Go on, Senator.

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

I ask Senator Byrne to resume his seat and I call Senator Cullinane.

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

I am sorry, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, but you cannot continue along this line.

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

I have ruled on the matter.

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

With all due respect, you must give an explanation for this ruling. I propose that you suspend the House to give a legal ruling.

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

Because of the Senator's continued obstruction I move that the House be suspended for ten minutes.

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

Thank you.

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

Senator Cullinane was in possession.

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

I want to record my disappointment with the cuts proposed in the Bill and take the opportunity to say to the Minister again that she has an opportunity to reverse the cuts, especially the cut to the respite care grant. Many Senators made impassioned pleas to the Minister yesterday to do the right thing by carers and the people in receipt of this grant but also in respect of the child benefit cut, which will have profound implications for many working families and those families whose members are not working.

As the Minister said previously, mná na hÉireann depend on child benefit as a core part of their incomes. Any cut in child benefit - the Government has cut the allowance twice - has a profoundly negative effect on women, children and families. The reduction of eligibility for jobseeker's benefit from 12 months to nine months is happening at a time when we are paying more through PRSI, the universal social charge and taxation, and entitlements are less.

I remind the Minister of the ESRI's commentary on the budget but, more specifically, on the social welfare provisions and their impact on low-income families. There is no doubt that the PRSI changes and the changes to the allowance will have a disproportionate impact on low-income families, regardless of whether one earns ¤200,000 per year or ¤30,000 per year or less.

I disagree with the contents of the budget. However, I welcome the Minister's statement that she will come back early in the new year to discuss the overall social welfare spend, how we can improve spending in this area and how we can ensure that people who need core services - whether they are carers, people with disabilities or others who depend on funding from the Department - get them and that we get value for money.

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

I would be grateful if the Cathaoirleach would consider putting the issue that came before the House earlier - that is, the tabling of verbal amendments - to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to bring clarity to that particular Standing Order.

The Bill is before the House at a time when the whole concept of austerity measures is being questioned internationally. The Minister will be aware that the IMF's report, widely reported in today's media, was positive in respect of Ireland, and as a proud Irish man I welcome it. We all want the Government to succeed in terms of regaining our place in the world economically and getting the people back to work. One aspect of this has been a continuum with the IMF in that it seriously questions the austerity measures being introduced by the Government.

This side of the House has been criticised for the budgetary measures taken during our last couple of years in office, but I want to put that in context. The IMF and all of the other independent commentators suggest that the budgetary measures introduced by the Fianna Fáil Administration, particularly in 2010, were fair, equitable and across the board. The main criticism that has been levelled at this budget and specifically at the Minister's proposals is that they are not fair, equitable, or just and are targeting the most vulnerable. That is the reason there is great disappointment. I tried to explain that disappointment yesterday. It is disappointing that the Minister, of all people, would support these cuts, considering her background, which she has mentioned repeatedly, and the fact that she is proud of the time she spent in a third world country. I am sure the whole ethos and philosophy and culture she brings to the job is against what she has proposed. I hope that in the new year the Government will reassess these proposals, particularly as they relate to the Department of Social Protection, that a stop will be put to cuts and that other areas will be considered.

There is no monopoly of wisdom in the Government, nor is there a monopoly of wisdom in the Opposition or on the part of political commentators. However, in the round, there is within the country a wealth of creative talent that can look at other alternatives to ensure that those who are inevitably being targeted - the most vulnerable - will not be targeted in the next budget. If it means a slippage in our targets, as has been indicated by economic commentators, so what, if means we will be able to stimulate the economy? We are currently flatlining. The Minister has said repeatedly that the amount of money she is paying out of her Department - ¤20 million plus - is a boost to the economy. It is trickling down into the economy and is being used by people across the whole economy. I know the Minister has to fight these issues when it comes to the Estimates debate after July and into the autumn. I hope the Minister will have the strength of international and domestic commentators going into the new year when she is looking at the next budget. All Departments are thinking about what will happen next year. We hope there will be growth in the economy and domestic demand. If not, I hope we will not come back next year for a fight on another proposal or series of proposals that will target those who can least afford it.

I cannot let the occasion pass without responding to what was said about the Fianna Fáil position in respect of some of these measures. This was a general view, held particularly by the Labour Party, which opposed tooth and nail the proposals being made by the Government at that time. Not only that, but all those who are working in the area of children and families have come out strongly against the proposals being made. For example, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul said that the changes in the budget gave the lie to Government rhetoric about protecting vulnerable people. The director of the National Women's Council of Ireland emphasised the cost of child care and said that child benefit had become an essential part of the household budget for many families. As a person who works in child care, I know that child care costs have soared. The Minister said that for couples who are trying to cope with mortgages in distress and to provide care for their children, this is what is hurting them. Although I do not wish to dwell on a number of quotes, there is one that stands out. It comes from the Minister's party leader, who said in October 2010: "Does Labour see room for some cuts? No, we do not." It is clear from any of the studies on poverty that the people who are worst affected are children. The cutting of child benefit makes that worse. At the pre-election child care policy launch in February 2011 it was stated that child benefit is often the lifeline that helps keep food on the table and the house warm. For parents with large mortgages and high child care costs, any further cut in child benefit would be a genuine crisis.

It does not give me any pleasure to put those statements on the record but it shows that all political parties can, from time to time, be accused of being hostages to fortune. Perhaps there are lessons to be learned by all of us in terms of what we promise the electorate at a difficult time, particularly when politics takes over, rational thought goes out the window and there is the scent of power. At such times it is inevitable that these commitments will be made.

I do not wish to take away from those others who wish to speak, and I wish to allow the Minister to respond. I empathise with the Minister because I understand perfectly the challenges she is facing. Like all sides of the House, I welcome the commitments given, particularly with regard to reviewing child benefit, because we all agree that is an area that needs to be examined and it is an area in which the Minister will have great flexibility. I wish her well and hope she will get her way through it. Everybody agrees there must be reform in that area. I welcome the opportunity to debate the issue with the Minister when the Leader provides the time in the new year. This disappointment, in the sense of the amount of money saved, was a step too far.

Sean Barrett (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to speak on the respite care grant. A special edition of the census of population reported last month that there are 187,000 carers, of whom 72,000 are men and 114,000 are women, amounting to 4.1% of the population. This number increased by 22,000, or 13%, between the 2006 census and the 2011 census. They are heavily represented in low-income areas of the country, with 5% in Mayo, 4.8% in Sligo, 4.7% in Roscommon and 4.7% in Kerry, and are least represented in south Dublin, Kildare, Meath and Galway City. The age groups that the Minister and her colleagues opposite decided to target are primarily older people. There has been a large increase of 33.6% in the number of carers aged 60 to 74 and an increase of 39.5% in carers aged 75 and over, a declines in the number of carers aged between 15 and 29, and a modest increase of 6% in the number of carers between the ages of 30 and 44. Any idea the Senators opposite have that this money was used to park one's wheelchair at the airport and go skiing in Switzerland is not borne out by any of the numbers.

I recommend that the Department of Social Protection get the numbers from the Central Statistics Office before it embarks on a measure like this in the future. The proportion of carers in rural areas is 43%, whereas they represent 38% of the overall population. The Minister has gone out of her way today and yesterday to target those in dire need. It is shameful that the Members opposite sought to prevent us from voting on the respite care grant. I voted with the Minister the first day, but would not do so again after the way she and the Members opposite conducted themselves yesterday. To target the respite care grant is mean and low. The Minister annoyed about 400,000 people to save ¤26 million. The ramming through of the measure has been the low point of the year in the House. I ask the Minister to obtain the numbers from the CAO which will not cost her anything and revisit the issue. I would have supported her on the other measures were it not for the way in which the business of the House was conducted yesterday.

Jillian van Turnhout (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are many things I would like to be able to say, but I am conscious of the time constraints and the need to allow my colleagues to speak.

The Seanad has had a couple of bad days. Senators Marie Louise O'Donnell and O'Brien expressed views which are very much my own. I listened carefully to what Members had to say and then recalled that on 26 September our group had tabled a Private Members' motion on children with life limiting conditions, which proposal would have saved the State several million euro, but it was parked, as we were asked to give the Government a chance to work on it. I spoke to Senator O'Brien earlier and found out that no movement had been made on the proposal. There are choices. We have brought forward in this House proposals to save the State millions, yet this is the choice we face on the respite care grant.

For several years I have called for reform of the child benefit scheme. Why was there no cushioning for those on low incomes? I understand the children plus initiative, but it will only be based on particular geographical areas and will not cover all low-income families. The Minister has said she will discuss with the House the report of the advisory group on tax and social welfare and family and child income supports in the new year. If, as I understand, the report was sent to her several months ago, why are we waiting until the new year to publish it? Why was it not published in advance of the budget to have the necessary discussions? I will have these hard discussions and have proved myself in the House. I do not object to everything and will take tough decisions. We are very keen on meeting our obligations to the troika, but the State has an obligation also to the United Nations under Article 18 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child which obliges the State to support parents and legal guardians to care and provide for their children. An attack on the child benefit payment is unacceptable because it impacts on children living in poverty.

The cuts to child benefit in the last budget came to ¤44.7 million, but this year the Government proposes cuts amounting to ¤136 million, which is enormous. On Tuesday the Minister told the House that the cut would be ¤10 in respect of the first, second and third child, but that is not true. The rate for the third child will be cut by ¤18 and the fourth by ¤20. These are the facts and they should be given correctly. I welcome plans for reform, but I regret what has happened in the past few days in the House. I have tried to play a constructive role, but we have been dealt with unfairly. I will, however, continue to play my role.

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

It is not easy for any of us, as Members opposite know. They were over here making the very same cuts that affected the same carers two years ago.

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

We cut for the wealthy by a great deal more.

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

This is not about the future of the Seanad and the next general election, rather it is about the next generation. I am not doing this to hurt carers, but because I am doing the right thing for our children and grandchildren.

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

Try telling them that to their faces.

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

I would not say it if I did not believe it.

I welcome some of the initiatives taken. I would have liked to have had a debate on a number of issues which I would have liked to tease out, including the reduction in jobseeker's benefit. I am very concerned about people who are contractually obliged to finish work at 65 years of age who will be left with jobseeker's benefit for only nine months. They have worked all their lives only to find they will have no income for three months. This is the sort of measure that needs to be teased out. I do not envy the Minister her job and I would not like to have it. However, she is a reformer and I welcome her agreement to come to the House early next year for a long discussion on these matters. Yesterday we received constructive criticism and ideas from Members across the House which could be taken into consideration. I look forward to the debate in February on the Mangan report on taxation and the family, to which Members will have a great deal to contribute. I ask the Minister to work on the child care measure and ensure its inclusion. She should not forget rural Ireland in establishing it, as people can find it difficult to get from their job in an urban area to their child's school in a rural area. There should, therefore, be a focus on rural schools.

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

I seek a formal ruling from the Chair on my verbal amendment.

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

I am not accepting verbal amendments.

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

I would like the Chair's reasons. Standing Orders state specifically that they may be made on Fifth Stage without notice.

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

Verbal amendments on Fifth Stage would only be permissible to make an obvious correction or on material inserted on Report Stage or in such circumstances. I do not accept the amendment and have made my ruling on the matter.

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

Where is the precedent for that? In Parliaments across the world short amendments may be made. My amendment relates to two letters of the alphabet.

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

The Chair has ruled consistently on the matter of verbal amendments. I am not accepting any.

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

I will be quick. I regret very much that the business of the House has been curtailed in the past couple of days. We have, however, tried to be constructive and there are some positive measures included in the Bill. I welcome the additional training places and the small number of additional child care places. As I said on Second Stage, I have a great deal of regard for the Minister and acknowledge that she has a tough job to do. I wish to take her up on two offers. She referred to her next meeting with the troika, but she did not state on Second Stage the true facts in relation to the troika and decision-making. I take her up on the offer she made, as I am sure other Members would wish to do, to invite a delegation from the Seanad to attend her next meeting with the troika. I respect her as a Minister who is representing us. I meet the troika as part of the finance grouping. However, I have yet to meet one person who can tell me that the cut to the respite care grant was right.

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

These have been a difficult few days, which reflects where we are at. We are in a terrible financial position. While confidence is improving, as are our international standing and reputation, Ireland continues to be a programme country, which is reflected in the deficit. We are making decisions today which are the result of bad decisions made in the past. These are the facts. We are carrying debts forward. A number of recommendations have been made in the House which it would be good to see adopted, as we do not want to be here this time next year saying the same things. As a reformer, I ask the Minister to consider bringing these suggestions to the social protection committee, as well as the House. I commend her for the publication of the Mangan report and a range of choices as early as possible in the new year. That is the way forward and if we debate them, we will have a stake in them. We could not then give out to the Minister this time next year.

If we all debate them we will all have a stake in them and then we cannot give out to the Minister this time next year because that is what is happening.

If we continue to exist within the straitjacket of the programme for Government and the Croke Park agreement we will find ourselves back here. That also needs to be noted.

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

As it is 2 p.m. I am required to put the question.

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

Faoi Ordú 62(3), ba mhaith liom go dtógfaí an vóta ar bhealach eile seachas ar bhealach leictreonach.

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

The Senator is not a teller.

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

Ba mhaith liom an rud céanna. Under Standing Order 62(3)(b) I request that the division be taken again other than by electronic means.