John Whelan (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I would like on my own behalf, and on behalf of the Labour Party in counties Laois and Offaly, to apologise to the electorate in our constituency for failing in this instance to abide by a solemn pre-election pledge to protect child benefit. To say otherwise is merely splitting hairs and semantics. When I, along with my colleagues, put up those posters and distributed those leaflets during the election, I believed we intended to stand over that commitment. I earnestly regret that we have not. I share the same deep sense of betrayal which is felt by many of those in my community and beyond who have contacted me, anxious and distressed by this across-the-board cut to child benefit.

We also promised to protect the most vulnerable, to be fair and ensure equity. Again, a universal cut to the carer's respite grant surely fails that test. It is not that I am looking to apportion blame but rather accept my share of the responsibility in these failures. If we promised reform, we also promised to restore confidence and credibility in a much tarnished, discredited body politic which has been brought into much disrepute. We will hardly do so by making false promises ourselves or breaking our promises.

The Government has a current expenditure in excess of ¤52 billion and the adjustment in tough cuts and taxes in this budget amount to ¤3.5 billion. The main flash point issues amount to less than ¤150 million. It is my sincerely held view that we could have addressed this amount differently rather than picking on children and carers. The option of a temporary short-term solidarity levy or social charge on high earners in excess of ¤100,000 was roundly rejected by the coalition Government. The choice the Cabinet made is beyond me.

It falls to more than the Labour Party to be guardians and gatekeepers of social solidarity, fairness and decency. People complain about the hand of the troika and our lack of sovereignty. True, we are not free agents and we are beholden. However, our income tax rates and policy should not be set by faceless third parties. After all, we already have a generous and attractive corporation tax regime. Many high earners and corporate entities would willingly subscribe to a voluntary social charge or a voluntary corporate contribution in the short term, particularly if they felt that resources were ring-fenced and put to best use for those most in genuine need.

It would also be remiss of me not to acknowledge and commend the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Burton, for her considerable achievement in substantially protecting those reliant on the bulk of her ¤20 billion social protection budget and safeguarding weekly payments to the disabled, carers, widows, pensioners and the unemployed. This is no mean achievement and one I do not disregard.

However, the time has come for the overhaul and reform of the child benefit system. Children's allowance was introduced as a universal payment in the 1930s but we live in a much different and more complex society today. With the budget's cut in child benefit, it is unfair that a family on ¤20,000 should be subjected to the same financial hit as those on ¤100,000 and over. On such difficult decisions, the Seanad does have a responsibility.

No Member has a monopoly on courage or righteousness. One road is as hard as the other. However, I do take exception to the personalised and vitriolic nature of attacks we have witnessed recently. Some people believe it is okay to give any politician they meet dogs' abuse as if it does not matter.