David Norris (Independent)

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews. It is a somewhat guarded welcome, although I commend him on a number of matters, including his recent performances on television. He has had a lonely and isolated position. He has put forward a reasonable view of the Government's performance in very difficult circumstances and I respect the decency and balance with which he has done it.

There is no disguising the fact that these are dreadful times and the end of the Minister's speech sums it up:

I will outline the main provisions of the Bill. Section 3 together with Schedule 1 to the Bill provide for the reduction in the weekly rates of social insurance benefit payable to people of working age ... Section 4 together with Schedules 2 and 3 to the Bill provide for the reduction in the weekly rates of social assistance payable to people of working age ... Section 5 provides for reductions of €10 each in the monthly rates of child benefit for the first and second child and the fourth and subsequent children.

I see there has been some kind of amendment relating to the third child as a result of the very strong and at the same time witty attack by Deputy Noonan in the other House. I could go on. It is a catalogue of reduction, penury and penalisation of the people. The bill is being presented to the taxpayer and most vulnerable people in our society, which is shameful in my view and that of everyone in the country.

On Sunday I was in St. Patrick's Cathedral, as I always am, and one of the canons, in his sermon, put it on the line for all politicians. He indicated how shameful it is that once again the weakest and most vulnerable are being attacked. I note that the Minister of State has been replaced by his colleague from the Green Party, the Minister of State, Deputy White, who is an old friend of mine and an old colleague from Trinity College. While it does not give me any pleasure to say any of these things, I was concerned several years ago when I noticed the Government was starting to dismantle so many of the institutions that spoke out and represented the vulnerable, marginalised and weak in this society. Abolishing the Combat Poverty Agency was most extraordinary and very foolish. Knowing we were heading into a blizzard, the Government should have invested money in the agency to provide psychological support, advice and services to, and a voice for, these people. Instead the Government took the other direction and disabled the already disadvantaged, which is appalling. It is a shame to see reduction after reduction.

We are told that in bookkeeping terms this is necessary, which may well be. An agreement has been concluded above the heads of the people by a Government that is so unpopular its support has collapsed to an historic degree. Did I ever think Fianna Fáil would sink to having 13% support in an opinion poll? We have an unrepresentative Government concluding agreements over our heads with financial institutions, some of which are themselves mired in this problem and who bear part of the blame. As a result of this agreement, this heavy burden, which for some may not be payable, is placed on the backs of the people. I ask the Government to consider the following. What about the people who simply cannot pay? The Bill contains a series of measures and we are promised further measures. There are hints and suggestions of other legislation coming and other cuts in the pipeline. It is not just one cut. Each individual in each family will suffer an incremental accumulation of cuts in areas in which they are most vulnerable. I sympathise with the people in charge of the Departments, including the civil servants, who need to take these grim decisions. They must be pretty disheartened also. I do not wish to add in any mean-minded way to that feeling of misery and despair. I believe we will get out of it, but it will be a very long time.

Dr. Paul Krugman wrote an article - I believe last week - which outlined what I have been saying for a long time, that it was unjust and immoral to present this bill to the taxpayer. I ask the Minister of State if it is possible for the Government to answer the question I asked last week on the Order of Business. Given that every reputable economist and financial commentator, regardless of the perspective from which they view the problem and regardless of whether they believe in burning the bondholders, have all said that presenting the bill to people, many of whom cannot pay because of their existing vulnerability, is unjust and immoral, how can we erect a decent civil society? How can we have concord among our peoples? How can we have a decent fiscal regime or a decent financial structure when it is erected on foundations that those with the greatest authority tell us are foundations of injustice and immorality? That is the framework problem.

We are turning language on our head. Dr. Krugman said it needed a Swift, who knew what he was talking about. Swift wrote the devastating satire, A Modest Proposal, and also took on an attempt to defraud the Irish people by alien interests when the king granted to his mistress and through her to her friends the right to foist debased coinage on this country. Swift's Drapier's Letters pamphlets were effective in undermining that attempted fraud on the Irish people. Dr. Krugman is right in saying that only a Swift could do justice to what is happening in Ireland. This is a social welfare Bill. In what manner does it address the welfare of the people? It does not. Welfare is not the appropriate word. The Minister is the Minister for Social Protection, but he is not protecting people at all and is in fact exposing them to extraordinary hardship, pain, and misery. When I use the word hardship, my mind goes back to the minister for hardship in "Hall's Pictorial Weekly". In those days we thought it was worthy of satire, but the position is the same today.

The Minister has said the provisions contained in the budget will affect the living standards of many citizens in the short term - they certainly will. He referred to the work placement programme, Tús. I have a reasonable knowledge of Irish, but I have no idea what that word means. Perhaps the Minister of State might explain its meaning. Is it similar to that of the word "tosnaigh", a beginning or a new start? That is certainly what we need.

Many pensioners are willing to pay their share. A taxi driver told me his old mother would gladly give up €10 in order that it could be given to others who were less well off than herself. The means-testing of applications for social welfare benefits is required. All of us in this House and outside it have to pay in this respect. What about organisations like the Jack and Jill Foundation? Its funding is being cut. As a result, seriously ill children will be landed back, as it were, which will cost the Government many millions of euro. This is unjust.