Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

No, I am not defensive. The Deputy is well aware that since we entered office there has been an obligation on us to try to work towards balancing the books. We are in our third year in office and we are still borrowing €1 billion per month. The people who loan us the money to spend in order to maintain the social infrastructure we regard as essential have attached conditions in respect of that money. In that regard, we must work towards reducing expenditure. The Deputy is correct that we are making subjective choices within the parameters which obtain. As a member of the Opposition, the Deputy will always focus - it is perfectly understandable and legitimate that she would do so - on referring not to the things we protect, but those which we cannot protect to the extent we would like. None of us wants to reduce spending in any area where such a reduction would have an adverse impact on the elderly, those who depend on health services, those in the disability sector, children, etc. We would prefer not to be obliged to touch any of these areas and, by and large, we have been very successful in protecting them.

One of the areas which has recently been the cause of some debate is that which relates to special education and to those in integrated education who have special needs. At the height of the boom in 2007, when Mary Harney and others were saying that we were awash with money, the State was spending €840 million on special needs education. Now we are spending €1.3 billion on it. We have maintained this level of expenditure because this is an important area. We have made a subjective choice in respect of the matter. We have also not reduced the number of special needs assistants. That number was ring-fenced during the latter days of the previous Fianna Fáil Government. It is very difficult to retain special needs assistants because they are expensive. However, that is the choice we have made.

These choices are subjective. One could make a policy decision which might, for example, impact adversely on the elderly. It could be stated that we should exclude the elderly from being touched at all. In the most recent budget, however, we reduced the threshold relating to the maintenance of medical cards for the over 70s. It was still a high figure but we did not grant automatic entitlement in respect of such cards because we were of the view that reducing the threshold was a fairer approach to take in the struggle to work towards a balanced budget. Human rights, equality and fairness must comprise the prism through which we view all budgetary decisions. However, it is not appropriate to make provision in that regard in this legislation.