Richard Boyd Barrett: Government Threatens Return to Austerity
Richard Boyd Barrett criticises the government for threatening a return to austerity after money was found for special needs. He argues the threatened cuts are avoidable and urges alternatives such as taxing wealth and profits instead of slashing services.
Richard Boyd Barrett accuses Minister Jack Chambers and the government of using special needs funding as a pretext for broad cutbacks across departments. He calls the approach a cynical divide-and-conquer tactic and labels the prospect of renewed austerity an "absolute disgrace."
Boyd Barrett points to clear alternatives to across-the-board cuts, arguing that extra money could be raised by taxing wealth and corporate profits rather than reducing public services. He insists underfunding of special needs was acknowledged only after pressure forced extra spending.
He places responsibility on the Minister for Public Expenditure to monitor budgets and to alert government departments to stay within budgetary frameworks. The address stresses that failing to do so would be a serious dereliction of duty with real consequences for public services.
The speech frames the debate as one between protecting services and returning to austerity, highlighting tensions within government choices over taxation, public spending and social supports.
Central accusation
Richard Boyd Barrett accuses Minister Jack Chambers and the government of using special needs funding as a pretext for broad cutbacks across departments. He calls the approach a cynical divide-and-conquer tactic and labels the prospect of renewed austerity an "absolute disgrace."
Proposed alternatives
Boyd Barrett points to clear alternatives to across-the-board cuts, arguing that extra money could be raised by taxing wealth and corporate profits rather than reducing public services. He insists underfunding of special needs was acknowledged only after pressure forced extra spending.
Accountability and expenditure control
He places responsibility on the Minister for Public Expenditure to monitor budgets and to alert government departments to stay within budgetary frameworks. The address stresses that failing to do so would be a serious dereliction of duty with real consequences for public services.
Political implications
The speech frames the debate as one between protecting services and returning to austerity, highlighting tensions within government choices over taxation, public spending and social supports.
We publish thousands of recordings to make Irish politics transparent and resistant to manipulation. Spotted an error? Report it — together we are building a reliable archive of Irish politics.
Other speeches
Tego samego dnia All speeches from this day →
Carol Nolan
Carol Nolan: ESP profits exposed - Bill needs real consumer relief
Rose Conway-Walsh
Rose Conway-Walsh: Will EU Tackle Knesset Death-Penalty Vote?
Charles Ward
Charles Ward: Nurses Deserve More After Letterkenny Report
Conor D McGuinness
Conor D McGuinness: Urgent Call After Waterford Fire
Paul Murphy
Paul Murphy: Calls on Taoiseach to Back Sanctions Over Genocide
Rose Conway-Walsh
Rose Conway-Walsh: 720 Covalin Job Losses - Demand Action
Transcript
I think it is an absolute disgrace that Jack Chambers and this government are threatening essentially a return to austerity and cutbacks across departments and trying to imply that because extra money had to be found for special needs that that's why this has to be done. That's a cynical divide and conquer tactic when there are actually alternatives. You'd underfunded special needs, you were forced to acknowledge that, you could find extra money rather than cutting other departments by taxing wealth and profits in this country. Deputy Paul Murphy. That's the elephant in the room that's never discussed. Deputy Paul Murphy. I think that Minister Chambers, someone has to keep an eye on public expenditure and if the Minister for Public Expenditure isn't then there's something really wrong. So the Minister has to alert all government departments to stay within budgetary frameworks.