Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

For the purposes of this debate the Cathaoirleach might consider banning words such as "fairness", "equity" and "justice" because they do not apply to this section or to the overall thrust of this Bill. We have had skirmishes for the past hour and ten minutes but this is the beginning of the discussion on the heart of this Bill. I could not help but reflect that it is coming from a party that for many years in opposition lectured this party on fairness and equity. It reminds me of the late lamented Frank Hall who on "Hall's Pictorial Weekly" in the 1970s created a character called the Minister for Hardship. We could call the Departments of the gang of five Labour Party Ministers Departments of Hardship because what they are doing to the most vulnerable is ironic. Theirs was the party that for a number of years took the high moral ground saying that if it had the opportunity to be in government it would be better than the other side.

They promised specifically not to do certain things. They suggested that in government they would protect the vulnerable. They would ensure the dastardly people in the Fine Gael Party would not introduce subtle cuts that would affect the most vulnerable, whom they see as the larger part of their constituency. Look at what has happened. In every Department with a Labour Party Minister, and I include Iveagh House - although as far as I am aware the only cut the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade made was to shut down the Irish embassy in the Vatican - in the Departments of Education and Skills, Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, and Social Protection we have seen cut after cut.

The Minister will be aware that in the past week the IMF which has been monitoring the economic progress of the country and helped in the bailout programme has said one needs to question the austerity measures. In the United States, the hardline neo-conservative Republicans agree that austerity has gone far enough and are now willing to see that the upper echelons of wealthy Americans pay more. The Minister had the opportunity to provide a viable alternative that would have prevented this cut of ¤26 million. A survey was carried out in 2006 - and perhaps there is a need for an updated survey as times have changed - in which 2,000 carers were surveyed and the conclusion was that one in four used the grant, which was then ¤1,200, for other things such as basic foodstuffs, heating and lighting. That was in the boom times. Consider the stories of anguish and torment that are being experienced by families who are relying to a large extent on the money from the Department of Social Protection. Most of those in receipt of the respite grant get it from the Department of Social Protection. How can the Minister stand over these cuts, when one considers her background? She should be ashamed of herself.