Barry Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

We live in very difficult times. This Dáil was convened in very difficult and constrained times. The period of fiscal rectitude over the last few years continues to be difficult, disconcerting, at times horrific, unnatural and unnerving. I could go on with different adjectives to describe the effects. Those adjectives would be descriptive of the various sectors, depending on the cohort and one's place in the economy. It depends on whether one is employed, unemployed, self-employed, employed in the private or public sector; disabled or not disabled; married or not; is a student, a graduate or a postgraduate; and on whether one is dependent or not dependent, or sick or not. Irrespective of whom or what category, all those mentioned are being severely affected, some to the extent that they have lost jobs, lost or fear losing homes, lost pensions or savings, entitlements and businesses, not to mention self-esteem. Many have left our shores and distort the figures that some Ministers proudly quote in respect of unemployment.

This process, along with the associated hardship and pain, has been horribly difficult. The predicament has straddled two governments and has placed great strain on the State's ability to deal with its effects, particularly in the area of social protection and in health. It obviously places strain, pressure and a particular obligation on those with leadership roles, such as those who head up Departments, as they have to respond appropriately, fairly, effectively and honestly. That response must have fairness at its core and it must seek to bring the people with it, instill a resilience in the people and to strive to plot a path out of our difficult times.

Having been faced with financial calamity, the previous Government was obliged to provide capital to maintain proper and functional governance. Irrespective of the national or international factors that brought us to that point, such funding from the troika would raise far less than would have been raised if the open markets were available. However, it allowed us to plot a means by which we might arrive at a pathway out from that point. The conditions attached to the funding were obviously challenging. Adjustments had to be adhered to. The gap between income and expenditure, irrespective of the funding sources, had to be bridged. The fiscal adjustments were severe, but most of us now recognise that they were necessary and the process has continued.

The Taoiseach was very excited and proud of himself and his own role in the impending exit from the bailout on 15 December. It needs to be said that this exit was pencilled in long before he came into his esteemed office. While he lauds that process, he should own up to the many Damascus moments he had along the way. He can point to success on interest rate adjustments. He can say that economic indicators are better, but the manner in which he met those difficult targets and the manner in which his Government continues to meet them, the choices his Government makes, the effect of its budgets and the adjudication of those budgets by an independent source such as the ESRI, means that all this is described as regressive, not progressive. The Government, the Taoiseach and the Minister for Health rubbished the fiscal policy of the previous Government when it sought to close the gap between income and expenditure by substantially greater amounts than that targeted in the last two budgets by this Government. The budgets introduced by that Government were adjudicated by the ESRI to be progressive.

In the election campaign of 2011, the members of the current Government said that they would do things differently. They would be more fair. They would find an easier way, a softer way, and a way in which to honour all the commitments that they had made to various sectors throughout their period in opposition. It did not matter whether it was Deputy Enda Kenny or Deputy Eamon Gilmore standing here, they said there was an easier and softer way to fill the huge gap that existed, and they were still going to accommodate the promises and commitments that they made to the electorate. They said they would burn bondholders. As I said here one day, they would not burn a sod of turf. They said they would retain social welfare rates. Ask mothers and families if have they done that. Ask young people on jobseeker's allowance if they have done it. Ask carers and the disabled.

They said they would protect income tax rates. Ask pension contributors if they have done that. Ask single parents if they have it. Ask home owners paying property tax. Ask home owners who are faced with water charges for a system that seemingly will not be fit for purpose.

The Minister for Health, when in opposition on these benches, said time and again that he would honour this country with a universal health system. Let him or the Minister of State here this evening ask discretionary medical card holders if he or his Government have done this. Let him or the Minister of State ask those aged over 70 who have lost their medical cards if they have done it. Ask people who were promised an end to prescription charges. Ask people who have had their home help hours cut. Ask the elderly who had their fuel allowance cut in the previous budget. Ask people who had their electricity allowance cut in the previous budget. Ask people who had their telephone allowance taken in this budget.

This Bill is symptomatic of this Government's ability to plough on regardless and achieve the targets set by the last Government in a way in which this Government sees fit, irrespective of the commitments that it made to the electorate in 2011. The Government ploughs on at the expense of the most vulnerable, the most needy, the most exposed, and at the expense of those who were described by the Minister for Health himself as people who made this country - those who raised him and the rest of us, who nursed us and protected us. What protection has he given to the same people in favour of whom he spoke so proudly back then?

The Minister of State and his Government stated in 2011 that they would achieve their targets in a way that would not curtail our health service, and in a way which would not affect the sick, the vulnerable, the needy and the poorest.

The promises the Minister made in this area and others were made to an electorate open to such commitments and promises and to fiscal rectitude by different means. To paraphrase a Cabinet and party colleague of the Minister of State, the promises and commitments that the Government made to the electorate at a time when our country was in such a perilous and vulnerable state were a sort of economic treason. It rests on the shoulders of those who made those predictions when they knew quite honestly that they could not keep them. They were made well aware at every possible opportunity of the difficulties that would befriend them when they came into office in order that they could address the problems that had to be dealt with. I do not say this lightly but it was said very flippantly on the other side of the House on a certain occasion and it is coming back to hit the Government twice as hard.

See this speech in context