I have made the point anyway. It is not my intention to enter into argy-bargy with you, sir, on this occasion or on any further occasion. I have made the point that the Minister misled the parties to the agreement. He then produced the report of the National Prices Commission which increases prices savagely in a number of areas. They are vicious price increases.
As a layman, apart from having the privilege of being a Dáil Deputy, when I heard the price increases coming over the radio on the morning of either the 2nd or 3rd of March, I was absolutely outraged. As a citizen of this country I asked myself—if one can put political prejudices aside—what are the Government doing about prices? That was my simple reaction. One can only wonder about the reaction of other people, especially the people I will deal with in depth later. As spokesman on social welfare I have an absolute obligation and duty to point out where these price increases hurt most and hit most, and where they are continuing to hurt most and hit most. I will deal with that in some depth at a later stage.
A suggestion was put around by the Minister for Industry and Commerce and spokesman on his behalf that the psychology of inflation demanded that the regular price increases sanctioned by the Minister should not be published seriatim or in composite form in the various newspapers and throughout the media generally. That was put down to the fact that if these price increases were published in composite form, in detailed form, the psychological effect on people reading it might encourage more inflationary trends. Nonsense.
As I understand it, that is one of the main reasons why these price increases are not listed in an ordered fashion as they are published. I am not in any way criticising the National Prices Commission when I say that. During the course of our journeys as TDs, housewives in Dublin city and County have complained to me and other public representatives about the fact that they consider—I do not altogether agree with them but this is what they consider—the workings of the National Prices Commission to be somewhat secretive because these price increases are not listed in detailed fashion. When the reports of the National Prices Commission come out they are published, but they do not get as much publicity as they should. This is the main burden of the complaints expressed to me.
In the Irish Independent this morning I noticed fortuitously that a survey was carried out by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. This survey was carried out in January of this year among 24 countries in the non-Communist world. It places Ireland's price increases as fourth fastest in the 12-months' period ending January, 1977, at 20.6 per cent per annum. We are fourth highest in a league of 24. Ahead of us were Iceland at 31.4 per cent, Portugal at 26.8 per cent and Italy at 22 per cent. It is an unfortunate record. The Government have to carry it because they are the responsible agency for discharging the electoral promise on which they were primarily elected. The Government were elected primarily on the promise that they would contain prices. As a general measure of their failure to keep that promise, we note that prices have increased by 83 per cent from February, 1973, to November, 1976. These prices are currently rising by more than 1¼ per cent per month.
Our inflation rate throughout the period of this Government has never been less than at crisis level. Its persistence threatens to destroy savings, erode confidence and undermine the very financial foundations of the State. In addition, if we are to take the predicament of our school leavers, all in all we have a recipe for revolution. It is an appalling prospect, but there it is. However, it is not my intention to engage in macro-economics or in the macro-economic aspect of our inflation. Rather I intend to underline the callous manner in which certain specific prices have been allowed to rise to the point where even the most basic commodities are being pushed beyond the reach of the poor and disadvantaged.
For instance, let us take the price increases on vital commodities. It will be claimed by members of the Government that, in respect of certain commodities such as bread, milk and butter, they took steps to reduce prices by providing subsidies and by removing value-added tax in order to offset the consequences of currency deficiencies passed on to the consumer through the mechanism of the green £.
We note what the actual price increases are. We can only shudder when we imagine what they would have been if this limited action I have just mentioned had not been taken. Some prices as between mid-February, 1973, and the current date have risen by 60 per cent and 70 per cent. These include briquettes at 64 per cent, rib steak at 63 per cent, milk at 60 per cent and tea at 62 per cent. Even bread and butter, arguably the most basic commodities in spite of the measures I have mentioned, the removal of value-added tax and the financial rearrangement brought about by the green £, have risen by 85 per cent between 1973 and now.
Most items have more than doubled in price. For example, bus fares, with which my colleague, Deputy Barrett, will deal in depth, have increased by 100 per cent and are continuing to increase; baked beans are up 110 per cent; sugar and margarine, 113 per cent; cornflakes, 133 per cent. Not finished with that, we have to deal with a price increase range of 150 per cent or more: flakemeal up 158 per cent; cheese, the basic staple diet of old age pensioners and widows, 161 per cent—whatever about Fine Gael Party Members, Labour Party Members should be ashamed of themselves —cheese, 161 per cent; cream crackers, 165 per cent and potatoes 150 per cent. This is the Government that make food a luxury indeed.
I have other commodities and other price ranges which I could quote at some length but, having regard to the time limits of the debate, I do not intend to go into them at great length. The point I want to make is that the commodities I have mentioned are all basic necessities of life and, with few exceptions, constitute the weekly basket of the less well-off sections of the community. It is very difficult to understand the mentality of members of a Government who can prate about their anxiety for the disadvantaged while allowing the economy to get so much out of control that they can only stand by and watch these price increases literally taking the bite out of the mouths of those who are in need of our care and concern. In the face of these facts I reject the Government's claim of concern for equity and justice as spurious and empty, as spurious and empty as all the other high-falutin' promises with which they have deluded the people for four long, weary, crisisladen years.
To deal with the area with which I am charged in Opposition, price rises and income increases for welfare recipients, much has been made of the increases in benefits which this Government have provided in social welfare over the years since they came to power. In particular a great song and dance has been made about the increases in the recent budget which will become effective on April 1st. I do not want to underrate these increases —far from it. They have the wholehearted support and approval of this side of the House. I should like, however, to set out in detail references to figures of various entitlements from 1973 to October, 1976, and to April, 1977, when the increases take effect and the estimated dates at which we consider the increases given in the budget will become eroded—it is as serious as that. In the table, which I shall quote at length, it will be seen that between April, 1973, and April 1977, there has been an increase of over 100 per cent in childrens' allowances from £2 to £4.10p and an increase of over 90 per cent in most other benefits. But I must examine these increases in some detail and ask whether they are percentage increases or real increases.
In the last column of the table I have calculated the dates by which the expected percentage increase in the inflation rate will have eroded the increases in benefits. For example, I estimate that even the latest increases which will become effective only in April next, have in many cases been eroded. If I may, I would illustrate my point by reference to the non-contributory old-age pension which was £6.15p in 1973 and since the review in October 1976, is now £10.75p representing an increase of 63 per cent. However, the increase in prices which took place from 1973 to November, 1976, was 83 per cent. Not only have all the increases in benefits been completely eroded but nearly all the additional benefits to be received next April—the extra £1 per week—have already been eaten away in price increases. Inflation has to rise by 4.4 per cent since November last to eat away the additional benefits to be received in April. I estimate that if this has not already occurred it is a virtual certainty that it will have occurred if not before then soon after the benefits have been received.
The same consideration applies to all these benefits with the single exception of children's allowances. Social welfare benefits of one form or another go to just under one million people and of that figure there are about 240,000 in receipt of children's allowances— subject to correction. Effectively, just under three quarters of a million people are affected by spiralling inflation and spiralling price increases uncontrolled by the Government. It is not good enough for the Parliamentary Secretary to—as we say in legal circles —plead the Gaming Act and blame outside influences. It has been proved beyond doubt that the 1976 budget pushed up prices by 5 per cent as a direct result of the Government's own miscalculation. It was not the fault of anybody else.
I should like to put this table on the record of the House. I understand that I cannot circulate it with my conclusions and my contribution and that it will be incumbent on me to articulate it. The following is the table:
|
Benefit
|
1973
|
October 1976
|
April 1977
|
Estimated Date by which increase will be eroded—1977
|
|
Unemployment Benefit
|
£6.55
|
£10.90
|
£12.45
|
31st March
|
|
Urban Unemployment Assistance
|
£5.35
|
£8.90
|
£10.20
|
31st March
|
|
A. Widows Non-Contributory Pension
|
£6.15
|
£10.75
|
£11.75
|
15th April
|
|
B. Widow's Contributory Pension
|
£6.60
|
£11.55
|
£12.60
|
15th April
|
|
Contributory Old-Age Pension
|
£7.20
|
£12.75
|
£13.90
|
31st May
|
|
Non-Contributory Old-Age Pension
|
£6.15
|
£10.75
|
£11.75
|
15th April
|
|
Children's Allowances
|
£2.00
|
£3.60
|
£4.10
|
15th October
|
|
Deserted Wive's Allowance
|
£6.60
|
£11.55
|
£12.60
|
15th April
|
|
Maternity Benefit
|
£6.55
|
£10.90
|
£12.45
|
31st March
|
So much for the budget we heard so much about and the social welfare content of that budget. It is my intention to repeat that series of figures which were prepared by a number of economists and actuaries of the highest repute. Those figures have been researched down to the very last detail and I do not think there is any answer to them. They are irrefutable. When I say they are irrefutable I do not suggest for a moment that somebody will not attempt to answer them. Of course there will be an attempt at an answer but it cannot be the truth in the light of the figures I have produced. As I said, it is my intention to repeat those figures as often as possible and to give a lie to the budget which, as I pointed out, is no longer an election budget.
I will now return to old age pensioners. This disadvantaged group in many ways ought to command our greatest concern and respect. These people have already given their service to the country. At this stage of their lives they do not belong to any powerful pressure group. If you are not a member of such a group in present day modern politics, you are a member of the most vulnerable section of the community. In my opinion the old age pensioners are in the most vulnerable section of the community and if we do not take care of them their plight could be helpless. How well and how generously a country cares for its old is one of the clearest marks of the degree of civilisation to which a country has risen.
In 1973 a pilot survey was conducted by the National Prices Commission to ascertain to what types of food and in what quantities the old age pensioners of urban Dublin allocated their weekly budget. I have costed that same basket of commodities at a current date. In February, 1973, the basket of necessities cost £2.71. Today that same basket costs £5.47p. This represents an overall increase of over 100 per cent. In many ways this is a better statistic than any other for measuring how inflation is hitting the poor and the old. It is better than the CPI which is naturally a crude overall index and better even than the individual items I mentioned at the beginning of my contribution.
In the case of the old age pensioner we come to the crunch of the politics of reality. If he has not the income some item in his basket must be left out. Words are cheap. This Government churned them out at the same rate and with the same contempt for meaning as they did in their manifesto four years ago. The test of their sincerity is the sum of their actions and no test is so valid as the treatment of the disadvantaged. On my reading of the facts the Government stand indicted.
Would those apologists on behalf of the Government, particularly in the light of the forthcoming election, please not involve themselves in political chest beating, saying what wonderful fellows they are in the context of the social welfare increases in the January budget? That budget was seen in the recent past to be just what it is—a piece of fraudulence perpetrated on the people, on the negotiators of the national wage agreement and on the most disadvantaged sections of our community.
It is interesting to note the increases in a number of items which I have already mentioned in the context of the old age pensioner's weekly base. In February, 1973, ¼ lb tea cost 10½p; in March, 1977, it cost 17p; 2 lbs sugar in February, 1973, cost 11½p; in March, 1977, it was 24½p. In February, 1973, 1 lb butter cost 29p; in March, 1977 it was 53½p. One pint of milk cost 5p in February, 1973; in March, 1977, it cost 8p. A 2 lb loaf, compliments of the Government, in February, 1973 cost 13p and in March, 1977, it cost 22½p. The staffs of life—bread, butter, tea, jam—are now being put out of the reach of the most disadvantaged sections of the community.
As I have already said and it is worth repeating, this Government have made food a luxury and are continuing to do so. They have put outside the reach of almost every person in receipt of social welfare entitlements of one sort or another, the basic human right of meat at least once or twice a week. Do they realise there are people in the community who cannot afford meat? Now we learn that the vitamin substitution for meat is cheese and the calories to be found in meat can also be found in cheese. Since 1973 to a current date, on my figures the cost of cheese has increased by 161 per cent. This Government have made food a luxury and cheese and meat unpurchasable. There will be variations on this theme as we go along but the realities are there.
There are those who will say "what would Fianna Fáil do in the same circumstances?" I said before— there is no reason why one should not point it out again—that whenever one gets a person writing an argument favourable to the Government one will always have them writing apologies on their behalf and it ends up asking: "What would the Opposition do?" All the Opposition can do is produce policies on various subjects. We have done this in relation to our economy. The Government have uplifted certain aspects of our policy on the economy and they made a complete mess of a number of aspects of it. We will continue to produce policies despite the fact that they are being robbed by the Government without any acknowledgement by definition. There are no patents on policies produced by the Opposition, unfortunately.
The Opposition have been responsible and will continue to be responsible but we are powerless. If the people find they cannot face up to the tragedy of the vicious spiral of price increases the answer is to change the position of the various parties in Dáil Éireann. If we are given the power to control prices—we want the power—we will do the job. We will produce the economic plan which will stabilise prices. We will do the job that the Government are either unable or unwilling to do.
Another item is the recent budgetary increase in telephone charges. One of the great monuments to the inertia of the Government or their willingness to produce some sort of comprehensive policy decision making or policy planning is the telephone service. The Government are increasing charges to a more or less non-existent service. I am not saying this is any reflection on the people who operate this service. They are not responsible for the day-to-day running of the Department. The people who in the final analysis are responsible for a proper telephone service are the Government. If anybody goes outside the Dáil Chamber, picks up a telephone and on first dialling the various digits gets through to the person he or she wishes to call I will give that person a prize. The value of the prize is another day's work, maybe the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs as first prize and the Minister for Industry and Commerce as second prize.
One of the greatest monuments to the Government's inactivity and failure on all fronts is the telephone instrument. Every time people pick up that instrument and cradle it in their hands they can see written largely across it "Government failure". The increase in telephone charges is one of the most tragic increases the Government introduced. They are robbing the people. They are putting increased charges on a service which is almost non-existent. Despite the huge capital expenditure on the telephone service in the last four years—this is what the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and others tell us—we have one of the worst, if not the worst telephone service in Europe. It is unfortunate that I have to say this. The Government must accept full blame for this sorry state of affairs. The tragic aspect of this is that the people are being asked to pay more for something they are not getting.
