Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

I accept that. I only mention it in passing. The point has been well made by others that child benefit is an important component in ensuring families can achieve some level of sustenance in their livelihoods. A reduction would particularly affect those families with a greater number of children because in many cases, if not consistently, the mother is excluded from participating in the workforce.

I compliment Senator Mary White who has referred to the reports she drew up in the previous Seanad. One very good report was related to child care and its recommendations found their way into some of the provisions made by the then Government. In general, because of the cost of child care it will be difficult for those with three, four or five children to continue to participate in the workforce which will mean they will become one income families. Therefore, any loss in their income stream will have a serious impact on them. As a result, I am concerned about the measure to which I am opposed. I accept it is easy for me to say this.

Other Senators have spoken about an underlying philosophy. I came across a quotation three years ago from Pedro Arrupe, Father General of the Jesuits, in the 1970s. He changed the wording of the mission statement from "the propagation of the faith" to "the propagation of the faith and the promotion of justice". I have tried to get my party to embrace it without great success, but it is worth mentioning it. It would be a great philosophy for the Minister for Social Protection to adopt. He said, "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."

That brings me to the point that within government — the Minister is honoured to be a member of Government — one has choices.

These choices could include, for example, not increasing salaries in the public service next year, instead of reducing the incomes of those on social welfare who are probably on the breadline, struggling to put food on the table and have clothes for their children. These choices inform our ethos as politicians and parties, as well as the ethos of the State. It is something I recommend the Minister adopt.

I agree with Senator John Gilroy. I accept that there are no easy answers, but I would have far preferred the burden of the corrections to be spread across all those us working in the public service and all those on social welfare. The rates in both areas are much higher than among our counterparts in western Europe. I do not even need to refer to the eastern bloc. We have a problem in that our prices are far too high also. I do not understand the reason in the current crisis the Taoiseach did not establish a Department of consumer affairs and competitiveness because such a Department is required. We have reduced pay and social welfare rates to a minor extent and, accordingly, must reduce prices. We must take a holistic approach.

The income of a family with five children will reduce in 2013 by €1,200. We only give such an amount to them for one year. This morning the State paid numerous barristers representing it €1,200 for two hours work. The payment to various ancillary units of the State is based on the half-day rate for barristers. That brings us back to choices, priorities and what we are about. Above all, it brings us back to the words of Pedro Arrupe about whether we are facilitating the privileged.

My colleague referred to the Tea Party movement and Fine Gael becoming the Tea Party of the Irish political system. Will the Labour Party be the server of the tea or will it stand up for the underprivileged and those struggling rather than impinging on them in the manner outlined in the Bill? We must spread the cuts right across the public sector. I also accept that social welfare rates must be cut. However, public service pay must also be cut, as it accounts for three quarters of the budget. We are trying to say we will not cut it and that we will try to find a solution with the other 25%. Of course, that will impact on people severely and unfairly. I appeal to the Minister who, from comments she has made previously, genuinely has people's concerns at heart.