Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

Let me say to FLAC and the DFI that I have a sympathetic ear for their critique of the austerity agenda and how it impacts on the most vulnerable in society. I could not agree with them more about the need to say enough is enough and to reverse some of the damage that has been done, which was catalogued extremely well by them, particularly in the DFI's submission, which shows the extent of the assault. I know that one of the group said he did not want to use the word "assault", but I shall. It is an assault on one of the most vulnerable sectors in our society. The submission shows that the cuts are part of a general assault but it is the most vulnerable who feel them the most. Many of the cuts affect the wider layers of society but they are felt deeply and doubly, trebly or quadruply by some of the most vulnerable.

I wish to ask DFI two things. First, I ask them to elaborate on the important point about not cutting pay and numbers in disability services. There is a narrative that was echoed in an earlier contribution which says that 90% of the cost of public services is spent on salaries. Its subtext is that we need to cut workers' pay to leave more room to manoeuvre when providing services. I think, and Mr. Dolan seemed to hint at the same, that we need to reject such logic. It seems to me nowhere is it more obvious than in the area of disability that providing services means providing human beings who, in turn, provide services. The service is providing a human being who will care for somebody, look after him or her and provide the necessary health care, support and so on. I would like to hear Mr. Dolan's view on this and I ask him to elaborate because the issue is important.

Second, has Mr. Dolan anything to say about the creeping privatisation of some of these areas? As public service numbers and public services are rolled back in a range of areas the private sector moves in, but it views it as a chance to make money. It is deeply worrying to see that development, particularly in areas such as disability and care of the elderly. Perhaps Mr. Dolan will comment.

I am delighted that FLAC raised the issue of social welfare appeals because the situation is alarming. Does FLAC agree that entitlements have been culled as part of budget cuts? People who previously had certain entitlements are now being refused, reviewed and so on and must endure the long process of appeal. I wish to outline one of the extraordinary features of this scenario and ask FLAC to confirm whether it has experienced the same. A consultant, counsellor or GP testifies to the Department of Social Protection that a person is entitled, or should be entitled, to a disability or invalidity benefit, but the person's claim is still refused by a person who, I can only assume, is in most cases not a doctor, a consultant or a counsellor. As a result, the person must go through the humiliation, ignominy and cruelty of appealing his or her case, and the process takes a long time. The appeal may not succeed despite strong medical evidence to back up the person's entitlement.

I agree with FLAC's comments on rights. The problem is how one translates human rights budgeting into practical policy. Let us take housing as an example. I am sick to my back teeth of the appalling housing crisis. How can one make a right to housing in law specific enough to make it truly binding and force action to resolve the housing crisis? We should put it in law that the State is obliged to provide permanent, secure and adequate housing within two years - I mean an absolute legal requirement, whereby the State would be open to legal action if it did not provide social housing for people who need and cannot afford housing.

My last question is for the ICMSA. It has a slightly different set of issues that I do not know as much about. However, I shall outline my perspective.

The impact of the current crisis is felt disproportionately by those on low and middle incomes, whereas those who are pretty wealthy are largely insulated from it. That is my view, with which the witnesses may or may not agree. I am slightly worried about the fact that the witnesses have spoken about no increases in capital gains or capital acquisitions taxes and no decrease in subsidies and other measures designed to assist farmers and to allow them to survive and invest in their businesses. I am not sure that business is always the best word to use because farming is a way of life which needs to be protected. It deserves special treatment for that reason, but I would draw the line at big, wealthy farmers, who should actually be taxed more, frankly. What do the witnesses think about having a differential approach? Would they be in favour of maintaining some of the protections and reliefs for the low and middle-income farmers who might be threatened by various tax changes but not for those farmers at the top who are making a lot of money? How would the witnesses feel about such a progressive or differential approach?