Exceptional Needs Payments - should they be scrapped

Wizzbit

Did anyone see last nights Midweek programme on TV3. Topic was on Exceptional needs payments. Appartently the Gov spent €63M on these payments last year which covered - household applicances, funerals, buggies, communions and Confirmation - (€3.4M).

Now I understand the word 'exceptional', and that to me would apply to someones boiler suddenly breaking down and needs to be fixed or a child has to go to hospital and the expense.... but for buggies and communions when you know these things are coming up.... surely we need to start looking at these payments and wonder can we make savings.
For example, I know in some schools for the communions they use the white robes, so everyone is the same and there isn't this mad expense that has to be paid out by each family.

What do people think?

http://www.tv3.ie/3player/show/192/0/0/MidWeek

Geuze

http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Policy/ResearchSurveysAndStatistics/Documents/2010stats.pdf

See p84 onwards of the DSP stats.

ENP are part of the broader SWA schemes.

ENP was 75m in 2009, 70m in 2010.

Note that the ENP are separate from Back to School clothing / footwear allowances.

Back to School = 77m.

Geuze

14.5m on clothing

2m on prams / buggies - though some people persist in claiming that this is an urban myth, even though the DSP themselves publish how much they spend on it.

"Travel costs" = 2.3m

Wizzbit

Geuze wrote: »

14.5m on clothing

2m on prams / buggies - though some people persist in claiming that this is an urban myth, even though the DSP themselves publish how much they spend on it.

"Travel costs" = 2.3m

I am intrigued by the two on that report for lost/stolen money for €168K and Insufficent means (whats that) for €2.5M

K-9

Geuze wrote: »

14.5m on clothing

2m on prams / buggies - though some people persist in claiming that this is an urban myth, even though the DSP themselves publish how much they spend on it.

"Travel costs" = 2.3m

I don't think the payment itself is the urban myth, it's the dumping buggies at bus stops story that is.

juan.kerr

Another ridiculous social welfare payment.

Ellis Dee

Few things in life are absolutely black or white. There are so many shades of grey as well, and that is why social welfare authorities have to have discretionary powers so that those in genuine need can be helped when something exceptional goes wrong. That in turn calls for highly competent and experienced officials, who are able in most cases to distinguish between genuine needs and expenditure that is entirely optional and unnecessary.

I remember a conversation I had with an old man in a park in Copenhagen one day in April over 20 years ago. I remarked on how nice it was that spring was coming in and the leaves were starting to unfold. He replied that he hated spring and summer. When I asked why, he took off his hat and showed me his bald head, then told me that in winter he could go to the Social Welfare Office a couple of times a week and say the wind had blown away his hat. He then got the money for a new one, which bought a bottle of booze. Unfortunately, that only worked in cold weather. An extreme case, but for the social welfare official a tough judgement call to make, and he was a charming old coot anyway, it has to be said.:D:D

Paying out money for religious ceremonies is an even worse waste of money, and probably in contravention of our Constitution as well, because it is de facto subsidising religion.:)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wizzbit

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Exceptional Needs Loans....sounds good..and yes I agree with you on the second-hand items. I mean we all had hand me downs growing up so why should now be any different.

I know VdeP were requesting families to donate old communion outfits at beginning of this year... I mean lets be honest the child wears the outfit max for 3 days and then it sits hanging in a wardrobe...

meglome

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Excellent suggestions. Over the years I've seen many a good buggy abandoned around town by the druggies/alcoholics/dregs. It really pisses me off that they can just not care and get another one.

later12

meglome wrote: »

Excellent suggestions. Over the years I've seen many a good buggy abandoned around town by the druggies/alcoholics/dregs. It really pisses me off that they can just not care and get another one.

How often does one see an alcoholic/ "druggy"/ "dregs" dumping a buggy

I'm pretty sure I've seen buggies dumped in Dublin... I'm not so sure about who put it there and how they came to acquire it.

Also, what have these people you so colourfully describe have to do with exceptional needs payments. Is this a general view you take of social welfare recipients or what?

In answer to the OP, no I don't believe exceptional needs payments ought to be scrapped. If they are true to their name - exceptional, and needed - then a social welfare claimant ought to be assisted by way of such a payment within reason.

Having said that, I wouldn't have a problem with a loan system as suggested above. Maybe with the exception of funerals.

Just to put this in context, the exceptional needs payments listed in that table all look to be genuine allocation headlines (funerals, burials, rent deposiuts and so on) with the possible exception of communion dresses, which would form a tiny part of the overall bill. This entire bill works out at about 145 euro per person on the live register in one year. I don't find that particularly shocking, taking into account the breadth of payments it includes.

K-9

meglome wrote: »

Excellent suggestions. Over the years I've seen many a good buggy abandoned around town by the druggies/alcoholics/dregs. It really pisses me off that they can just not care and get another one.

You'd think the officer would cop on to these type of serial claims. Seriously, how does somebody lose a buggy?

later12

K-9 wrote: »

You'd think the officer would cop on to these type of serial claims. Seriously, how does somebody lose a buggy?

Who lost a buggy?

The term relates to purchase of a buggy or a cot.

It doesn't have to be lost. Presumably the case would be where there is a new child in the family, or the old one is no longer fit for use.

I'm not quite sure we're dealing with a dumped buggy epidemic here lads.

meglome

later12 wrote: »

How often does one see an alcoholic/ "druggy"/ "dregs" dumping a buggy

Living in Dublin city centre for a long time I can assure you I've seen it many times.

later12 wrote: »

I'm pretty sure I've seen buggies dumped in Dublin... I'm not so sure about who put it there and how they came to acquire it.

And I also seen several other buggies, perfectly working buggies from what I could tell, also left there. I have no idea who left them there but I'm going to guess it's far less likely if you paid good money for it.

later12 wrote: »

In answer to the OP, no I don't believe exceptional needs payments ought to be scrapped. If they are true to their name - exceptional, and needed - then a social welfare claimant ought to be assisted by way of such a payment within reason.

Having said that, I wouldn't have a problem with a loan system as suggested above. Maybe with the exception of funerals.

Just to put this in context, the exceptional needs payments listed in that table all look to be genuine allocation headlines (funerals, burials, rent deposiuts and so on) with the possible exception of communion dresses, which would form a tiny part of the overall bill. This entire bill works out at about 145 euro per person on the live register in one year. I don't find that particularly shocking, taking into account the breadth of payments it includes.

I wouldn't get rid of all payments but making many a loan would stop a lot of abuse.

later12

meglome wrote: »

Living in Dublin city centre for a long time I can assure you I've seen it many times.

Let me get this right, you've seen alcholics, "druggies" and the "dregs" as you call them, dumping buggies.

Many times.

Is that right?

meglome

K-9 wrote: »

You'd think the officer would cop on to these type of serial claims. Seriously, how does somebody lose a buggy?

later12 wrote: »

Who lost a buggy?

The term relates to purchase of a buggy or a cot.

It doesn't have to be lost. Presumably the case would be where there is a new child in the family, or the old one is no longer fit for use.

I'm not quite sure we're dealing with a dumped buggy epidemic here lads.

I have no idea why the buggies were left but they did seem to be working. And I am assuming if they do this they must be able to access another one. The point is I have never seen anyone do this what wasn't a drinker, a druggie or the absolute dregs of our society.

later12

meglome wrote: »

The point is I have never seen anyone do this what wasn't a drinker, a druggie or the absolute dregs of our society.

I find this incredible.

How many times would you say you have seen someone "what was a drinker, a druggie or the absolute dregs" dumping a buggy?

And do you understand the difference between a social welfare claimant in need of an exceptional payment and "a drinker, a druggie or the absolute dregs"?

meglome

later12 wrote: »

Let me get this right, you've seen alcholics, "druggies" and the "dregs" as you call them, dumping buggies.

Many times.

Is that right?

I have seen them walk off and leave them there, yes. I have seen them get off the bus and leave them there. I have seen it in shopping centres. Is there something not clear about that?

Sorry to classify the people as I have but it does sum up the people I'm talking about. When you live in Dublin city centre for many years you get far less PC over their behaviour, as you see it every single day.

later12 wrote: »

I find this incredible.

How many times would you say you have seen someone "what was a drinker, a druggie or the absolute dregs" dumping a buggy?

And do you understand the difference between a social welfare claimant in need of an exceptional payment and "a drinker, a druggie or the absolute dregs"?

I don't care what you believe.

I fully understand the difference. I mentioned one specific thing I have had on my mind for some time, that is likely to be abuse of the system. I cannot understand how these people are leaving buggies if they are not getting replacements.

later12

meglome wrote: »

I have seen them walk off and leave them there, yes. I have seen them got off the bus and leave them there. I have seen it in shopping centres. Is there something not clear about that?

Give us a number. How many times have you seen this occuring? I've lived and worked in the city centre of Dublin as well and while I'd spot the odd buggy dumped in the liffey, I find it amazing to think that this public display of buggy rejection was going on all around me.

I'm not sure what you're saying is remotely credible. However you've claimed an unprovable and I suppose people will make up their own minds whether they believe it.

meglome

later12 wrote: »

Give us a number. How many times have you seen this occuring? I've lived and worked in the city centre of Dublin as well and while I'd spot the odd buggy dumped in the liffey, I find it amazing to think that this public display of buggy rejection was going on all around me.

I'm not sure what you're saying is remotely credible. However you've claimed an unprovable and I suppose people will make up their own minds whether they believe it.

Best guess a bit over ten times, not exactly laying at every corner but it's the people I see do this that's relevant. I'd guess you wouldn't see much of this on Baggot street or wherever but trust me if you're in the right area you'll see it.

And again I don't care if you believe it.

K-9

meglome wrote: »

I have seen them walk off and leave them there, yes. I have seen them get off the bus and leave them there. I have seen it in shopping centres. Is there something not clear about that?

Makes no sense to me, why would you discard it after getting off the bus? Before getting on seems more logical!

Anyway, people definitely shouldn't be getting it twice, unless they've good reason.

meglome

K-9 wrote: »

Makes no sense to me, why would you discard it after getting off the bus? Before getting on seems more logical!

Anyway, people definitely shouldn't be getting it twice, unless they've good reason.

I'm saying they got off the bus with the child and left the buggies there. No idea why.

Chuck Stone

meglome wrote: »

Excellent suggestions. Over the years I've seen many a good buggy abandoned around town by the druggies/alcoholics/dregs. It really pisses me off that they can just not care and get another one.

Ah the old 'CWO will buy me a new buggy' myth.

I genuinely thought you were joking but it seems as if you're not.

Also, if you think about it, it simply doesn't stand to reason that a scammer would leave a perfectly good buggy behind them. If a 'buggy scammer' was greedy for money they would sell the buggy and then claim for a new one.

Also, why leave the buggy on the bus? Why not leave it at the bus stop and get onto the bus?

Nope.. it simply doesn't stand to reason.

Shenanigans.

meglome

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Ah the old 'CWO will buy me a new buggy' myth.

I genuinely thought you were joking but it seems as if you're not.

Also, if you think about it, it simply doesn't stand to reason that a scammer would leave a perfectly good buggy behind them. If a 'buggy scammer' was greedy for money they would sell the buggy and then claim for a new one.

Shenanigans.

Ah holy **** tonight. I'll try again... I have NO IDEA WHY THEY LEFT THE BUGGIES. The point is the only people I've ever seen do it where not what you'd call gainfully employed. So I'm SPECULATING as to why that is.

Just asked the GF and she has twice seen people get on the bus with a child and leave the buggy there on the street. Plus she was with me when we saw other buggies being abandoned. Jaysus it was a minor point to begin with.

Delancey

There exists a group that love to blame all this county's dire problems on Social Welfare receipents and conveniently forget ( forgive ? ) Fianna Fail and their Banker / Developer pals.
One tactic is to spread utterly untrue stories about SW entitlements , for example many believe that there exists a Pet Allowance that the unemployed can claim in order to pay for pet food and vets bills - not so , there is a small benefit for Guide Dog owners but it is distorted and exaggerated to stir up antipathy ( hatred even ? ) against those on SW benefits.

I agree that there should be more emphasis on Exceptional Needs loans as opposed to grants , i.e. a system modelled more on the UK DHSS way of doing things.

While Communion grants seem to be an anachronism in our increasingly secular society it must be remembered that the Catholic Church remains the patron of the vast majority of primary schools and thus Communion is difficult to avoid where a parent is anxious their child not be seen as different or otherwise exposed to embarrasment.

Think I read somewhere that the Minsiter recently ordered a significant cut in the Communion grant ?

meglome

Delancey wrote: »

There exists a group that love to blame all this county's dire problems on Social Welfare receipents and conveniently forget ( forgive ? ) Fianna Fail and their Banker / Developer pals.
One tactic is to spread utterly untrue stories about SW entitlements , for example many believe that there exists a Pet Allowance that the unemployed can claim in order to pay for pet food and vets bills - not so , there is a small benefit for Guide Dog owners but it is distorted and exaggerated to stir up antipathy ( hatred even ? ) against those on SW benefits.

Why oh why did I get into this discussion. I never come in here and blame social welfare recipients per se. That doesn't mean the system isn't abused and that the system itself isn't broken. We are spending a very large chunk of our tax revenue plus borrowings on social welfare. So it really would be ignoring the elephant in the room to not discuss that. The majority of the money we've borrowed was for our day to day deficit, not the banks, and we should not forget that.

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

I think there is enough verifiable grist for the mill here without getting bogged down in the abandoned pram/car/[insert expensive item here] barstool debate.

Delancey

My post was not directed at any poster/s here in particular , apologies if I gave such an impression.

Certainly SW spending has to be looked at , the biggest item is Child Benefit ( AKA Childrens Allowances ) , a vital part of the income of some families but to many other families it amounts to little more than pocket money for the kids.
The fact that all families are entitled is indefensible , some badly need it while others certainly don't.

Welease

Delancey wrote: »

My post was not directed at any poster/s here in particular , apologies if I gave such an impression.

Certainly SW spending has to be looked at , the biggest item is Child Benefit ( AKA Childrens Allowances ) , a vital part of the income of some families but to many other families it amounts to little more than pocket money for the kids.
The fact that all families are entitled is indefensible , some badly need it while others certainly don't.

It's not easy to determine who does and doesn't need it...

There are many families who would fail a simple (income only) means test but removing the benefit would cripple them, or make unemployment more attractive in financial terms.

murphaph

Exceptional needs loans to be deducted at €10 a week from main welfare payment seems perfectly fair and would eliminate a lot of claims.

creedp

Welease wrote: »

It's not easy to determine who does and doesn't need it...

There are many families who would fail a simple (income only) means test but removing the benefit would cripple them, or make unemployment more attractive in financial terms.

Why is it that people get perplexed about giving child benefit to families who 'don't need it' but have no difficulty giving tax breaks to wealthy people who certaintly don't 'need' them. For instance why do high earners get a PAYE credit. Why do wealthy people get tax breaks at the marginal rate for private pension contributions with no cap on the contribution? Surely someone earning a €100k doesn't need his PAYE credit any more than he needs child benefit. Very often higher gross income families are dual income families and therefore pay a fortune in childcare. So child benefit is set off against this cost. Without it it wouldn't be worthwhile working. Maybe that's what people want? Most civilised countries provide some kind of allowance/credit for childcare costs but not here .. your on your own lads.

K-9

creedp wrote: »

Why is it that people get perplexed about giving child benefit to families who 'don't need it' but have no difficulty giving tax breaks to wealthy people who certaintly don't 'need' them. For instance why do high earners get a PAYE credit.

Because it's a tax credit for PAYE workers. The Self employed and Directors don't get it.

Why do wealthy people get tax breaks at the marginal rate for private pension contributions with no cap on the contribution?

There are contribution caps dependent on age, unless there is something else you are getting at.

Surely someone earning a €100k doesn't need his PAYE credit any more than he needs child benefit.

Fair point.

Very often higher gross income families are dual income families and therefore pay a fortune in childcare. So child benefit is set off against this cost. Without it it wouldn't be worthwhile working. Maybe that's what people want? Most civilised countries provide some kind of allowance/credit for childcare costs but not here .. your on your own lads.

Unfortunately that horse has bolted. I'd have preferred childcare tax credits introduced instead of the Early Childcare payment but FF had to choose the populist approach and give it t all children under 5. The cost of the tax credit would have dropped in a recession.

Unfortunately we are in a recession and any savings now are cuts to reduce the deficit, not redistribute the savings.

Cedrus

K-9 wrote: »

There are contribution caps dependent on age, unless there is something else you are getting at.

Contributions to directors pensions are not capped, however this does not necessarily translate as a sop to the wealthy as a director building up a small business or with otherwise irregular income needs to be able to catch up on their pension when and as they can.

Valmont

Could I just quickly express my thanks to Later12 and Meglome: that buggy exchange was the funniest moment of the week for me.

Re exceptional needs payments -- social welfare is high enough in this country anyway; I can only see the option of getting one of these payments encouraging people to save less and to not manage their existing dole money properly.

creedp

K-9 wrote: »

Because it's a tax credit for PAYE workers. The Self employed and Directors don't get it.



There are contribution caps dependent on age, unless there is something else you are getting at.


Fair point.


Unfortunately that horse has bolted. I'd have preferred childcare tax credits introduced instead of the Early Childcare payment but FF had to choose the populist approach and give it t all children under 5. The cost of the tax credit would have dropped in a recession.

Unfortunately we are in a recession and any savings now are cuts to reduce the deficit, not redistribute the savings.

No problem with any of these comments but just pointing out that people develop very strong viewe on some issues but do not apply these views consistently. Presumably people's views reflect how issues affect them. No children so don't like child benefit especially for the rich!

later12

murphaph wrote: »

Exceptional needs loans to be deducted at €10 a week from main welfare payment seems perfectly fair and would eliminate a lot of claims.

That's fair enough for some of the smaller expenses, but that plan could also see a claimant paying off their partner's funeral payment over a decade.

€10 may not sound like an awful lot of money for you and me, but it represents a 5% cut in payment to these people, and a 5% wage cut sounds slightly more unpalatable to me personally.

Also, these payments are supposed to be in-kind payments where possible. That is, a cheque is supposed to be made out to a service provider like a furniture company and so on.

murphaph

later12 wrote: »

That's fair enough for some of the smaller expenses, but that plan could also see a claimant paying off their partner's funeral payment over a decade.

€10 may not sound like an awful lot of money for you and me, but it represents a 5% cut in payment to these people, and a 5% wage cut sounds slightly more unpalatable to me personally.

Also, these payments are supposed to be in-kind payments where possible. That is, a cheque is supposed to be made out to a service provider like a furniture company and so on.

When my father passed away I had to find ca. 5k to bury him. Nobody came running to help me so I'm aware how it can be difficult to organise a funeral at short notice.

To be honest I don't have a problem with an exceptional needs payment (not loan) for a very modest funeral for people who genuinely can't afford it.

touts

Of course this payment should be scrapped. The people who avail of it seem to take pride in knowing which sob story works best when it comes to getting money and that is a sign of a seriously flawed system. So scrap it.

However we also need a across the board cut ot at least 20% in all welfare payments. The means tasting of child benefit, fuel allowance, berevement benefit, and similar payments to a voucher based system to make sure it is pumped straight into the local economy and stop it being saved or sent straight to Poland/Nigeria/etc. We need to crack down on fraud by rooting out 50 or 100 fraudsters and throwing them into Mountjoy for a few months. That will make sure people are too terrified of the consequences to attempt to defraud the taxpayer.

It would be painful for a few months but we would find that just as in Iceland, Argentina, etc the cost of living will drop to reflect the new reality of money in people's pockets. People will learn to prioritise the essentials and booze, fags, the bookies and bouncy castles, are not essentials. Hopefully a voucher based system will force the money to be spent on true essentials thus minimising the impact on the vunerable.

But we have a minister for social protection who has her eye on becoming the first female taoiseach so wont do anything to upset her electorate while she plots her path to power first in Labour and then nationally. There needs to be a swift reshuffle and an ambitious Fine Gaeler put in there who will recognise that their vote is not as dependent on those on welfare.

Godge

later12 wrote: »

That's fair enough for some of the smaller expenses, but that plan could also see a claimant paying off their partner's funeral payment over a decade.

€10 may not sound like an awful lot of money for you and me, but it represents a 5% cut in payment to these people, and a 5% wage cut sounds slightly more unpalatable to me personally.

Also, these payments are supposed to be in-kind payments where possible. That is, a cheque is supposed to be made out to a service provider like a furniture company and so on.

We are the only social welfare system in Europe that would allow someone to remain on benefit payments for a decade without being forced to get a job.

So actually €10 a week until you get a job when the repayment would go up would be fair enough.

As for the 5% cut, how many people on here have suffered a bigger pay cut than that?

later12

Godge wrote: »

We are the only social welfare system in Europe that would allow someone to remain on benefit payments for a decade without being forced to get a job.

Are we?

I'm still waiting for your evidence that the Irish public service is small by European standards, and now you suggest that there is no such thing as someone being a social welfare claimant for ten years in the likes of the United Kingdom, France, Spain and so on.

No doubt you will now drive carriage and horses through my scepticism with relevant evidence.

Godge

later12 wrote: »

Who lost a buggy?

The term relates to purchase of a buggy or a cot.

It doesn't have to be lost. Presumably the case would be where there is a new child in the family, or the old one is no longer fit for use.

I'm not quite sure we're dealing with a dumped buggy epidemic here lads.

One buggy passed on to three children, passed on to sister for her four children. That is what the coping classes - those working - have to do, but it is not good enough for our social welfare recipients.

We also passed down second-hand clothes but hey, we just pay our own way.

As for the buggies, have to say that I haven't seen them being dumped by anyone, druggie or not. But I have been down at the local health centre and seen the packets of Pampers (not Tesco or Lidl nappies like the rest of us) handed out and loaded into the 09 SUV. But hey, they need a life.

The problem with this county is the level of expectations. And that applies whether you are a 71-year old in Killiney who has made some bad multi-million investment decisions and expects to stay in his house or you are a social welfare recipient who expects to have a new buggy.

Wizzbit

touts wrote: »

However we also need a across the board cut ot at least 20% in all welfare payments. The means tasting of child benefit, fuel allowance, berevement benefit, and similar payments to a voucher based system to make sure it is pumped straight into the local economy and stop it being saved or sent straight to Poland/Nigeria/etc. We need to crack down on fraud by rooting out 50 or 100 fraudsters and throwing them into Mountjoy for a few months. That will make sure people are too terrified of the consequences to attempt to defraud the taxpayer.

The voucher system would be good for big items... i.e. large appliances, prams etc.... what way are the exceptional payments made... do people just get cheq made payable to them...or is it for a shop so that it can't be used for anything else... or as mentioned before for certain things it should go through VdeP and they can source the goods for people and get the money in return

touts wrote: »

But we have a minister for social protection who has her eye on becoming the first female taoiseach so wont do anything to upset her electorate while she plots her path to power first in Labour and then nationally. There needs to be a swift reshuffle and an ambitious Fine Gaeler put in there who will recognise that their vote is not as dependent on those on welfare.

I like Joan Burton and I think she is trying to sort out all these payments... but like everything in this country, if you 'upset' any group there are consequences and like you say she wants to remain in Gov for the next while and make a name for herself she is not going to 'rock the boat'

K-9

Godge wrote: »

But I have been down at the local health centre and seen the packets of Pampers (not Tesco or Lidl nappies like the rest of us) handed out and loaded into the 09 SUV. But hey, they need a life.

These are supposed to be for children who have special needs and require far more than the norm AFAIK.

Boskowski

When I look around our estate - which thankfully still is in pretty good shape - I see loads of kids playing with all sorts of stuff during the day. Kids bikes, scooters, roller skates, footballs , the usual stuff.
Funny enough, the only family whose stuff is scattered all over the estate during the night and whose stuff is visibly rotting over time 'til its presumably being dumped, is the family where none of the parents are working. Guess its because the didn't have to lift a finger to acquire those things in the first place.

We spoke about this the other day in work and while surely tons of people will now come out and tell me thats anecdotal everybody in my group of colleagues has observed the same thing where they live.

Godge

Boskowski wrote: »

When I look around our estate - which thankfully still is in pretty good shape - I see loads of kids playing with all sorts of stuff during the day. Kids bikes, scooters, roller skates, footballs , the usual stuff.
Funny enough, the only family whose stuff is scattered all over the estate during the night and whose stuff is visibly rotting over time 'til its presumably being dumped, is the family where none of the parents are working. Guess its because the didn't have to lift a finger to acquire those things in the first place.

We spoke about this the other day in work and while surely tons of people will now come out and tell me thats anecdotal everybody in my group of colleagues has observed the same thing where they live.

And don't forget the family I know where they are on social welfare, the father does nixers, the mother minds a child, no tax paid on either, they got two holidays abroad last year while we had none. Just waiting to see where they go this year, but that is just the Irish way.

murphaph

Godge wrote: »

And don't forget the family I know where they are on social welfare, the father does nixers, the mother minds a child, no tax paid on either, they got two holidays abroad last year while we had none. Just waiting to see where they go this year, but that is just the Irish way.

Report them if you haven't already.

Welease

K-9 wrote: »

These are supposed to be for children who have special needs and require far more than the norm AFAIK.

Correct, children over 3 who have Long Term Disabilities disabilities are entitled to free nappies. The brand of nappies choice would lie with the HSE who control the supply not the parent.