No room at the inn for Bronagh — and all the cutback victims

NO room at the inn. That’s the phrase running through my head this past week or so. I’ve read it in several different places, and I’ve heard it used in conversation.

No room at the inn. In one of the four or five richest countries in the world. A country whose economy is still growing, whose inflation rate is manageable, whose debt is coming down. A country whose society is young, articulate, gifted and the best educated in our long history.

No room at the inn. It's a phrase that paints a picture. A picture of a mean, cold and bitter place. A place where plenty doesn't guarantee a welcome. Where prosperity is not meant to be shared. Where those most at risk must fend for themselves.

Is that what we are becoming? Are we becoming the sort of place where to be poor is to be hunted, where to be in pain is to be alone? Or are our political leaders just trying to lead us down that mean little cul de sac?

The thought is prompted by a number of news stories and images. Of course, one most recent powerful image, but by no means the only one, was of the devastated face of Denise Livingstone on the Late Late Show, as she pleaded with our Government not to let more tragedies happen in Monaghan.

Last This week Denise's baby, Bronagh, died. She was born in an ambulance, because her mother was turned away from one hospital and sent to another. Had Bronagh been born on the way to Monaghan rather than on the ambulance trip to Cavan, she would have been admitted to Monaghan, and been in the best hands when an emergency struck. But she wasn't.

Because our system decreed she shouldn't be born in Monaghan Hospital. And our system decreed that there should not be adequate investment in the support and back-up that Denise and her baby needed on that dreadful journey.

Who is to blame? No doubt there will be someone to scapegoat in due course. But in all the recrimination let's not forget one thing. For the last few weeks two Government ministers have been bickering in semi-public, through the use of judiciously placed leaks. One (Finance) has poured scorn on the efforts of the other to manage money. He has poured billions into health, he says, and it's all squandered. The other (Health) has said he is determined to get value for money. He wants us to think of it as the taxpayers' health service rather than the patients' health service.

But Monaghan was one place they both agreed money could be saved. All the reports and studies were there to back up and justify the choice they wanted to make. That's the thing you have to remember. The downgrading of Monaghan was a political choice not something forced on the system, but something the system was only too willing to accommodate.

Nobody wanted Bronagh Livingstone to die. That was nobody's choice. But she died as a consequence of a political choice anyway in the one place that could be safely downgraded to save money and prevent waste. Somehow or other, it never occurred to people who thought that money was the only thing that mattered that people could end up suffering.

But it's not the only image. Look at all the other choices that have been publicised in the last week or so. Will no one suffer as a consequence of those? Are those choices, too, designed to lock the door of the inn, to nail the sign that says "no room here" outside?

For example, this headline from a few days ago is a less dramatic sign perhaps, but just as meaningful: "Cheaper housing plan abandoned" the story of how the Government has capitulated to one of the most powerful vested interests in the land, and significantly watered down one of its own (very rare) progressive ideas.

The 20% requirement on builders to include affordable housing within their developments was hated by the industry. But it was beginning to work even in some of the most "salubrious" developments. Now it's gone and over time, despite protestations, the old order will reassert itself. The sign saying "local authority tenants not wanted here" can be erected again.

And the Government has admitted that it intends to "review" the number of special needs teachers it employs. "We may be more generous in the Republic regarding special needs and over-generous in the interpretation of department circulars," a Department of Education spokeswoman is quoted as saying.

Really? Tell that to the several hundred parents who still have to sue the State to get any education at all for their children. Tell it to the youngsters in a three-year queue for speech therapy, or a five-year queue for psychological assessment.

It's about saving money. About ensuring that one more group won't gain admission to the inn because they might be a bit expensive. Expensive because we've neglected their needs for far too long. The minister will reassure us, no doubt, that he has no intention of firing any special education teachers. But what of the 800 or so additional teachers due to be recruited this year? Guess what? Their letters of appointment might just be suspended (for say a year or so) while the situation is being investigated.

Meanwhile, plans are well advanced to save between €30 million and €50 million by slashing the numbers of people who can benefit from two more schemes. No, no, no, we're not talking about tax breaks which favour the idle rich here. We'll save the money by radically reducing the number of unemployed people who can benefit from the Back-to-Work Allowance scheme, and by radically cutting the number of unemployed people who can be hired on community employment schemes.

These schemes worked for people. They worked very well, and they were cost-effective. Only thing is, they might have given people ideas above their station. They might have persuaded them that long-term unemployment doesn't have to be that way.

So the schemes are being removed, little by remorseless little.

I could go on. We are, it seems, going to have tighter controls on "would-be" refugees. Our Minister for Justice has decided that anyone wishing to claim refugee status should in future do so at the airport or port where they land.

And if they do, will there be resources at hand to ensure they get fair treatment? Will individuals or groups concerned for the rights of refugees, and for due process, be allowed ready access to them? Or will the majority of applicants be summarily dealt with on the spot, packed back on to the plane or boat they just got off, without any of us being any the wiser? What practice do you think is likely to prevail in the fullness of time?

Or maybe I'm all wrong. This is after all Ireland of the welcomes. A place were we are only too glad to share. A place where we are conscious of the plight of our neighbour and forever willing to look after our own. A place where there is always room at the inn. Isn't that right?