Michael McNamara (Clare, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to express my views on the budget, many aspects of which are disappointing. I am particularly disappointed that there was no increase in the universal social charge on incomes over €100,000 to bring it to the level paid by self-employed persons with similar incomes. I am aware of the argument that an increase in taxes on income would further damage the economy, regardless of how high the income may be. However, that does not make sense when those who are self-employed and, therefore, creating employment for themselves and others are paying a higher level of USC. I am disgusted by the reports that have emerged in the media in recent weeks that any increase in the USC would have to be accompanied by a cut to core social welfare rates. In other words, if we dare to touch the rich it will have to be accompanied by more pain for the poorest.

I have consistently argued that the cut to the respite care grant could be avoided by imposing a 3% surcharge on the universal social charge for pensions of more than €60,000. Only retired bankers, senior civil servants and the former colleagues of Deputies Martin and Ó Cuív who ran for the hills 18 months ago receive pensions of more than €60,000. I am not arguing that an increase in the universal social charge would obviate the need for a reduction in the social protection budget. A reduction in the social protection expenditure has to occur if we are to reduce the money this State spends to the amount that it takes in. There is no alternative to balancing the books and narrowing the deficit. Even the economists who argue for default acknowledge that the deficit has to be reduced to zero if we are to take that course.

However, cuts to the social protection budget have to be implemented in the fairest way possible and should impact least on those who have the greatest needs. Those who drive to work from towns and villages across County Clare to earn €10 or €20 more than they would get by staying at home should not be hit any harder because they are the heroes of society and not those who sit in this House. They go out to earn a bit more money because they believe in the dignity of work and are determined to contribute to society.

Much as I dislike the worst aspects of the budget, such as the manner of social welfare cuts and PRSI increases, as one Deputy out of 166 I have a choice to make. I do not intend to throw my hands up and walk away from the challenge of supporting a Government which has to take deeply unpopular choices. I could go over to the Opposition benches and be led by Deputies Adams and Martin as they compete for supremacy. Deputy Martin introduced cuts to core social welfare rates, which the Labour Party has refused to do, and reduced the national minimum wage, a measure which my party has reversed. He supported these measures without so much as a murmur while he was in power. Now that he is in opposition, however, his perspective is different. I do not believe Deputy Adams wants to be in government. He could be representing the part of this island with the highest unemployment rate, West Belfast, but he walked away from that problem because he knows that it is easier to sit on the Opposition benches than to take a stand. A backbench Deputy could take a stand and be unsuccessful but I intend to continue sitting on these benches while arguing the case for the ordinary people of County Clare who elected me.

See this speech in context