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

As a democratic and republican party, we are obliged, and acknowledge, that our people are sovereign and we will always accept their will. We did so graciously after the last general election. We respected the people's decision and we wished the present Government well; yes with a heavy heart, but in the circumstances one had to hope it would live up to the expectations and trust placed in it by the Irish people.

In the election campaign we levelled with the people. We had agreed the broad parameters of a four year plan. We had acknowledged financial targets had to met, and there had to be debt reduction and a reduction in capital expenditure. Against this, despite the other parties having been made aware of and allowed full access to the State's financial affairs, the public at large were offered an alternative to this unfortunate reality. They were offered a five point plan and the NewERA document and the 100,000 jobs associated with it. They were offered a democratic revolution. More importantly they were offered a softer and easier way. The plans and agreements entered into by the previous administration would be torn up and it would be Labour's way rather than Frankfurt's way. It was the contention of members of Fine Gael, in particular the Minister, Deputy Varadkar, that not another red cent would be given to banks. Red line issues would dominate Fine Gael and the Labour Party in government, including child benefit, no hike in education fees and bondholders would be burned. The only thing to be burned apart from turf were credit union bondholders who lost out in the IBRC debacle.

Despite this the Government will remind us at every opportunity it has met the financial targets laid down. It took approximately 30% of the funds that needed to be taken out of the economy, compared to the 70% removed by the previous administration. The choices made associated with this 30% have inflicted much more pain than the removal of the previous 70% and this is borne out by independent assessment. The Government's budgets have been judged by independent assessment to be regressive rather than the progressive budgets of the previous administration. It has inflicted more pain, whether it likes it or acknowledges it, on the less well off, the underprivileged, the elderly, the sick and disabled, students and on rural Ireland, where my constituency is based.

The Government tells us it has not touched core social welfare rates. Will it tell this to pensioners who have lost their phone allowance, fuel allowance and home benefit packages or to home helps and their clients? Will it tell carers it has not touched core social welfare benefits? Will it tell those in the greatest need who have had their medical cards removed or their prescription charges trebled? Will it tell students whose fees have increased and who find it increasingly difficult to access grants from "Susi Quinn"? Will it tell rural communities which have lost gardaí and Garda stations and where post offices are under threat as we saw last week? Will it tell rural communities which have lost rural transport schemes, community welfare offices and access to community welfare? Will it tell those who have had their REPS schemes decimated? Will it tell those students and their parents who do not now have access to career guidance counsellors in their school?

Will it tell communities with small rural schools with two, three or four teachers that it has reconfigured the pupil teacher ratio in these circumstances to allow teachers to be lost and parents to begin to wonder whether the school can thrive? Will these parents have to consider moving their children to schools with greater commitments from the Government? This will mean the schools will not be closed directly by the Government, but they will be left in a position whereby they must amalgamate or close. When this is done to schools it inflicts huge pain and damage to the heart of rural communities. In many instances the school is the centre of rural communities. It gives them and their inhabitants a sense of place and identity, and to take this away is a grave injustice.

At the start of this debate we explained we felt it was a backslapping exercise on the part of the Government. Earlier this week I heard the Taoiseach state there would be a question and answer session but there was not. It offered an opportunity for many of us to respond directly to our counterparts who have the privilege of high office and governing the country, but this privilege has not been afforded to me.

Moreover, it was not afforded to Deputy Bily Kelleher in respect of the health portfolio. Despite this, I wish to highlight inefficiencies that exist in the structure of local government. In the area of local governance and funding to local authorities, for example, can the Government acknowledge the obvious decimation of rates income? Will it acknowledge the reduction in local authorities' housing rental income? As the Government is responsible for setting up the quango that is Irish Water, it obviously can acknowledge that the income from that sector is gone. Will the Government acknowledge that planning income is as good as gone? Moreover, income from car tax and development charges has fallen, the allocation from central government has been reduced and the grants from the National Roads Authority to local authorities have fallen in value. In addition, allocations in respect of rural water scheme allocations have been reduced.

I will turn to the biggest sin and the biggest infliction on local authorities, whereby the Government gave a commitment that based on property tax, income would be ring-fenced for local authorities. However, in the first full year in which that income has been raised, none of it - not one red cent as the Government itself states - is being allocated to local authorities. Fianna Fáil will remind the public of this when we campaign in the coming weeks for the local and European elections. We will categorise and prioritise for people in order that they can discern precisely how much was collected in their own community, their own county and their own constituency. We will tell them in clear and definite terms that not a single red cent was allocated to local authorities. We will tell them that not a single red cent of what they have paid is going towards the provision of services and facilities in their local authority area.

If anything, everything is being taken from them. As I stated, provision of water services have been centralised away from them. Even local democracy itself has been centralised with the abolition of town councillors and town councils. I believe this step will be perceived to have been retrograde when the time comes that people cannot access local authority members who can work on their behalf. It now is obvious that in the absence of funding being made available to the local authorities, why should one have available local authority members to do anything with what they do not have?

See this speech in context