Marc MacSharry (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I remember on one occasion that it happened when we were on the Government benches, too. This is basically a slap back to Senator Moloney for speaking against the Government and asking to debate a particular issue. Here we are with no Minister, principal officer or Secretary General to listen to what is said. I intend to participate in the debate in the spirit in which Senator Moloney has raised it and I hope the transcripts can be given to the working group. We had a robust exchange here on the Order of Business the morning it happened. It was unruly, I participated in that myself and do not apologise for it. Equally, however, this issue goes back a while and more than one Government could be blamed for not dealing with the issue.

However, the Government cannot take refuge from the previous one on this matter. Blocking this allowance unilaterally without having an alternative in place was wrong. It is my earnest wish that within the four month review period those in receipt of the allowance will continue to receive the same monetary benefit while new applicants are facilitated immediately. We are talking about people who are on only ¤190 per week. It is a means-tested payment which is made to 4,700 people with disabilities. This is also the week in which we heard about a bank executive earning ¤840,000.

When I was on the other side of the House, I recall sitting all night to put in place new legislation for this and that. However, when it comes to the most vulnerable in society, we seem to be powerless to produce a principal officer to listen to the genuine solutions being presented on a cross-party basis. Mr. John Dolan of the Disability Federation was not even consulted about the removal of this grant. Has he even been asked what he considers is the best way forward? For me, there is a legislative solution to the problem posed with this allowance. I agree that it would be difficult to adequately pin down how many disabilities should be eligible to be covered by the allowance, but we must try. In doing so, we could bring it into line with the Equal Status Act. I am not saying the drafting of these legislative provisions will be easy, but it should be tried.

Nobody has an issue with the spirit with which the Government is trying to deal with the loaves and the fishes. The reality is that there are choices, but sometimes bad ones are made. This was one of them. Yes, there is a legal anomaly that has to be dealt with, but, surely, it could have been dealt with without taking away the allowance first. We could have continued to be in breach of European law, as we regularly did in the case of septic tanks and turf-cutting, for another four months while we put together a legislative solution. If eligibility for the allowance needs to be broadened, perhaps that should be the case and we need to provide more funds. I doubt if anyone would have an issue with adding a little levy or a duty on alcohol to provide for this allowance which ensures the mobility of the most vulnerable and the less well-off. Those in receipt of it were on ¤190 a week. When the allowance was removed, it represented an effective 20% cut to their income. This is at a time when all Members are bemoaning the fact that an additional 13% was given by way of a salary bonus and increases to the chief executive of a bank in which we are meant to be shareholders.

There is something wrong with the system. I thank Senator Marie Moloney for giving us this opportunity to debate the matter. This to me, however, is the epitome of why some want to abolish the Seanad.