Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I would be grateful if the Cathaoirleach would consider putting the issue that came before the House earlier - that is, the tabling of verbal amendments - to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to bring clarity to that particular Standing Order.

The Bill is before the House at a time when the whole concept of austerity measures is being questioned internationally. The Minister will be aware that the IMF's report, widely reported in today's media, was positive in respect of Ireland, and as a proud Irish man I welcome it. We all want the Government to succeed in terms of regaining our place in the world economically and getting the people back to work. One aspect of this has been a continuum with the IMF in that it seriously questions the austerity measures being introduced by the Government.

This side of the House has been criticised for the budgetary measures taken during our last couple of years in office, but I want to put that in context. The IMF and all of the other independent commentators suggest that the budgetary measures introduced by the Fianna Fáil Administration, particularly in 2010, were fair, equitable and across the board. The main criticism that has been levelled at this budget and specifically at the Minister's proposals is that they are not fair, equitable, or just and are targeting the most vulnerable. That is the reason there is great disappointment. I tried to explain that disappointment yesterday. It is disappointing that the Minister, of all people, would support these cuts, considering her background, which she has mentioned repeatedly, and the fact that she is proud of the time she spent in a third world country. I am sure the whole ethos and philosophy and culture she brings to the job is against what she has proposed. I hope that in the new year the Government will reassess these proposals, particularly as they relate to the Department of Social Protection, that a stop will be put to cuts and that other areas will be considered.

There is no monopoly of wisdom in the Government, nor is there a monopoly of wisdom in the Opposition or on the part of political commentators. However, in the round, there is within the country a wealth of creative talent that can look at other alternatives to ensure that those who are inevitably being targeted - the most vulnerable - will not be targeted in the next budget. If it means a slippage in our targets, as has been indicated by economic commentators, so what, if means we will be able to stimulate the economy? We are currently flatlining. The Minister has said repeatedly that the amount of money she is paying out of her Department - ¤20 million plus - is a boost to the economy. It is trickling down into the economy and is being used by people across the whole economy. I know the Minister has to fight these issues when it comes to the Estimates debate after July and into the autumn. I hope the Minister will have the strength of international and domestic commentators going into the new year when she is looking at the next budget. All Departments are thinking about what will happen next year. We hope there will be growth in the economy and domestic demand. If not, I hope we will not come back next year for a fight on another proposal or series of proposals that will target those who can least afford it.

I cannot let the occasion pass without responding to what was said about the Fianna Fáil position in respect of some of these measures. This was a general view, held particularly by the Labour Party, which opposed tooth and nail the proposals being made by the Government at that time. Not only that, but all those who are working in the area of children and families have come out strongly against the proposals being made. For example, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul said that the changes in the budget gave the lie to Government rhetoric about protecting vulnerable people. The director of the National Women's Council of Ireland emphasised the cost of child care and said that child benefit had become an essential part of the household budget for many families. As a person who works in child care, I know that child care costs have soared. The Minister said that for couples who are trying to cope with mortgages in distress and to provide care for their children, this is what is hurting them. Although I do not wish to dwell on a number of quotes, there is one that stands out. It comes from the Minister's party leader, who said in October 2010: "Does Labour see room for some cuts? No, we do not." It is clear from any of the studies on poverty that the people who are worst affected are children. The cutting of child benefit makes that worse. At the pre-election child care policy launch in February 2011 it was stated that child benefit is often the lifeline that helps keep food on the table and the house warm. For parents with large mortgages and high child care costs, any further cut in child benefit would be a genuine crisis.

It does not give me any pleasure to put those statements on the record but it shows that all political parties can, from time to time, be accused of being hostages to fortune. Perhaps there are lessons to be learned by all of us in terms of what we promise the electorate at a difficult time, particularly when politics takes over, rational thought goes out the window and there is the scent of power. At such times it is inevitable that these commitments will be made.

I do not wish to take away from those others who wish to speak, and I wish to allow the Minister to respond. I empathise with the Minister because I understand perfectly the challenges she is facing. Like all sides of the House, I welcome the commitments given, particularly with regard to reviewing child benefit, because we all agree that is an area that needs to be examined and it is an area in which the Minister will have great flexibility. I wish her well and hope she will get her way through it. Everybody agrees there must be reform in that area. I welcome the opportunity to debate the issue with the Minister when the Leader provides the time in the new year. This disappointment, in the sense of the amount of money saved, was a step too far.