I was dealing last evening with the commitment of the Government to the underprivileged, the sick and infirm. I was somewhat amazed at the concluding remarks of the Minister for Fisheries and Forestry when he said he was deeply interested in the affairs of the handicapped and pointed to the fact that the Government had removed VAT from wheelchairs. In glowing terms he took great credit for believing that a Government with such a commitment deserved the praise and support he was giving them. He boasted of the 25 per cent increase being given social welfare recipients in this budget. Let us examine whether or not this represents a 25 per cent increase to them. When one considers that all of these payments will not come into effect until April next when one-sixth of the year will have expired, this means that the remaining five-sixths of 25 per cent represents 21 per cent and, with inflation running at an annual rate of 19 per cent, these people are in fact getting an increase of 2 per cent. The real purchasing power of the increase being given them is a mere 2 per cent. A Government which in the Year of the Handicapped see fit to award the poorer section of the community an increase of 2 per cent and then boast in glowing terms of their social conscience and their great concern for the sick, handicapped and underprivileged are disgusting to say the least. It is disgusting that a party would read the social position of this country and its people in such a way. I want to protest in the strongest possible terms at such behaviour.
I welcome some aspects of the increased social welfare payments, especially to old age pensioneers. I congratulate the Council of Ireland of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul for reading the situation of our needy much more accurately than the Government elected to take care of them. I must acknowledge that some suggestions put forward in the pre-budget submission to the Government have been met, but others have not. I might be permitted to read some examples from this booklet. It says that at least one-third of the nation's children live in families dependent at least in part for their income on weekly social welfare payments. It is contended further that one-quarter of all households living on low incomes are headed by an elderly person. Households headed by an elderly person are 2.7 times as likely to be poor as other households. Households consisting of elderly people living alone are three times as likely to be poor as other households. Thirty per cent of all those interviewed lacked basic water amenities.
A sum of £2 per week cannot possibly purchase sufficient fuel to provide adequate heating for the elderly. About one in seven of our old people living alone are consistently lonely. That is an indictment of Irish society, a total indictment not alone of the present Government but of this House and of the concern we have for people in such need. Each of us in public life, in our constituencies, must be aware of elderly people and families living on well below the breadline, of old people who must go to bed early because they have insufficient finance to purchase coal or other fuel. They go to bed to keep themselves warm and remain in bed longer during the day because, by so doing, they will not feel the hunger pains as much.
We have come a long way in the last 50 years but there are still aspects of our society not being tackled properly. There is insufficient evidence in the present budget that we are tackling that matter in the way we should. I give credit to the new Minister for Health and for Social Welfare for being a concerned person, someone who wants to listen to what is going on. But if one looks around at the way moneys have been doled out to speculators to get back into business, to get on the gravy train of the Haughey administration, so that in turn they can pay into the coffers of the Fianna Fáil Party at election time, one begins to see the basic truth. These are the hard facts: you scratch my back and I will scratch yours. The Tacateers have returned, or are knocking at the door to get in, and the Government are encouraging them.
The Minister for Social Welfare quoted some figures worthy of examination. He said that the old age pensioner would have an increase from the present rate of £24.50 per week to £30.65 and showed that that was an increase of 25 per cent. It is not a 25 per cent increase and, in real terms, it is not £6.15 per week. When one takes into consideration the inflation rate of 18 per cent and the fact that he will not get the increase until April, it is only 75p per week. That old age pensioner will have to stand against the inflation that this budget has caused between now and then. In this year when the Government say they are so concerned about these people and when inflation is at 18 per cent — and that is not disputed by the Government—they have given these people 75p per week in real purchasing terms. Of course, a widow with a contributory pension who is just one year under the age for the old age pension is expected to live on £2.50 per week less; the new pension in this case is brought up to £28.15 per week. On the same calculation that I used in respect of the old age pensioner, that widow will receive a 67p increase in real purchasing terms.
Where is the commitment that this Government talk about in this year of the handicapped? This is what is called ringing the changes, making people believe that because they have more money in their pockets they are better off. Why cannot these people have their increases from the time the prices increase? Inflation started as a result of this budget last Friday with the increase in the price of petrol and it will get progressively worse between now and April when the old age pensioners, the widows and orphans, the families in need of social welfare benefits, get their increases. What are we doing? We are telling them that if they need money they should go to the social welfare officer and get the supplementary welfare allowance.
Is there any appreciation by the Government of a thing called human dignity? Have we lost all sight of the fact that people have pride and that they should not have to go on bended knees to the social welfare officer asking for a dole out to help them pay for the groceries or fuel, the footwear and the clothing that they need for their children? Why is it that we have not got imagination or appreciation? Are we fooling ourselves or do we not have the money to make the social welfare payments as and from the time other increases are granted? It is not beyond the bounds of imagination or possibility, and there is no administrative difficulty, that these increases to the elderly, to the sick, the infirm and the handicapped, could be made payable at the time of the budget. It is merely a book-keeping exercise and could easily be done. Why is it not done?
The Government might say that when we were in power we did not do it. What justification is there for concluding that because we did not do it—and it was wrong—that the Government should continue the error? One could say that it is traditional to do things in this way. Why cannot we change tradition if there is a need to change it? Why must someone like me argue and make accusations across the floor that the Government are not really interested in welfare of the needy until people in high places get embarrassed and say this is what should be done? We do not have any special gift from God of having greater concern for the sick and the old and the infirm. It is not because one is born into a particular tradition, the tradition of a political party, that one has a monopoly on this. Each of us has been given the same ability by our Creator to think out these things and recognise them and do something about them. Why is there so much silence on the Government benches when it comes to this? Why is there so much applause on the back benches when the Minister talks about the massive increases in social welfare, particularly for the elderly, the infirm and the handicapped? What has not been done is a fine-combing of what happens when it comes down to buying the butter, the bread, paying the rent, buying the shoes and the clothing.
On the figures given by the Minister, a widow on a contributory pension with three children gets an increase from £45 per week to £52.90 per week. The Minister argues that that was an increase of £7.90 per week. I argue that that family is £1 worse off. Again the increases are not available until April. So, with one-sixth of the year gone and taking into consideration that between the end of the year and the next budget in 1982 they will still feel the effects of this bad system of delayed payments, we are back to the example that the Minister gave when he was speaking on the budget. He said that a widow with three children would now be £7.90 better off. I dispute that and again I take into consideration inflation at 18 per cent and not 19 per cent which is the reckoning of the economists. The increase that that family received in the budget was 19 per cent and not 25 per cent. We calculate 19 per cent over 12 months but this family has only got the increase for ten months so in real terms it is 16 per cent and that is 2 per cent below the 18 per cent inflation, so in terms of purchasing power that family is £1 worse off. That is taking almost the lowest example to prove how kind the Government have been to the widows and orphans. If we take into consideration a family of four children then that position gets worse. If we take into consideration a family of five children the position is worse again. I do not know why this has not been exposed before now. I do not know, nor can I imagine, the thinking in the Department of Finance, advised by the Minister in his Department of Social Welfare, that will allow such things to happen. If one section of our society is to be protected, we must all agree that it should be the people who do not have any fathers to care for them, the mothers who have all the trouble of being father and mother and who are living on £52.90 a week.
Recently the former Taoiaeach, Deputy Lynch, speaking at a Fianna Fáil occasion, said it was important for the Fianna Fáil Party to stick together because in the event of a change of Government, such alternative Government would not last six weeks and Fianna Fáil would have to come back into power, maybe under a new leader—perhaps that is what Deputy Lynch was speaking about. The only hope the former Taoiseach had for this nation was that Fianna Fáil should stay together because if they did not there was no future for the Irish people.
What disgusted me about this was that Deputy Lynch was lecturing at a function where those present had paid £20 for their meal, as much as some hungry people in Dublin, Cork and rural Ireland were given to keep them for a week. He said unless people continued to vote for a party which kept them in such dire distress, God help the Irish. If there is ever a change of Government I hope that any party I support will have a greater commitment to the needs of our society than the present administration.
The Minister for Social Welfare told us he increased the free fuel allowance from £2 to £3 per week. He missed the point that the price of fuel has increased by that amount and that these people are not getting anything extra. What annoys me is that if he recognises the right of people to free fuel why can he not do the honourable thing and include this amount in their pension? Why do they have to make application and tell the community care office how poor and needy they are, or how some member of the family is not living up to his or her responsibility to support their parents? Why do they have to go through this humiliation? Why do they have to come to public representatives saying they got fuel vouchers last year but not this year although they are as poor, if not poorer this year than they were last year? Is there no appreciation for human dignity? Is there no imagination in the Department of Social Welfare, the Department of Finance or in the Government ranks, that old people have a certain amount of pride, no matter how poor they are? If free fuel is seen as a necessity, the Government should do the decent thing and include this allowance in their pensions.
There is another aspect on the social welfare scene to which I would like to refer, and that is the increase in maternity allowances. This is to be welcomed but I wonder if we are going far enough. I hope I will not be misinterpreted when I say this, and this view will be shared by many people in this House and in local authorities. When a young girl gets married and looks for maternity leave a few months later officials in county councils and health boards tell me, and I do not disagree with them, that for the few weeks before her official maternity leave starts that young woman, for physical reasons which must be understood and sympathised with, is not concentrating on her job. She goes off sick two or three weeks before her maternity leave officially starts. She is justified in doing this because her doctor recommends it and no one is disputing that. When her official maternity leave terminates she might not be fit to return to work and will continue on sick leave, which she is also entitled to. This means that in many cases maternity leave is not for 14 weeks, as provided in the budget, but can be extended to 20 weeks or even six months.
There is the disruption in her place of employment to be considered. During the time she is off work her replacement has to learn the ropes for the first few weeks and this has an upsetting effect on the place of employment. When the young lady returns to work after four, five or six months, she is out of tune with what is happening in the organisation. I wonder if we have reached the point where we should be seriously looking at a system which would pay young women to stay at home while they are having a family?
On one of my trips abroad to a communist country, Bulgaria, one of the weakest, if not the weakest, economy in Europe, I learned that everyone, man and woman, is guaranteed a job. When a young woman announces she is pregnant she is entitled to her weeks wages for two years from that date forward to stay at home and look after her child. I wonder if we should be heading in that direction. I have not studied the economics of the situation but I imagine it would lead to economic convulsions to deal with it right away, because some people would take advantage of it, and it could be argued that others are excluded. We are going in that direction and sooner or later we will have to look at the facts. What I said is really happening at present and the increases provided by the Minister are not the answer to maternity leave.
In the budget the Minister announced that he was providing £250,000 to examine the potato industry. When we talk about potatoes we are talking about Donegal. The potato seed industry in that county is so basic to the agricultural industry that it is an insult to offer the pittance given in the budget. Many potato growers believed from what they read in the papers that this £250,000 would benefit them directly, but that was not the case. Not one penny of that £250,000 will go directly into the pockets of the potato growers in County Donegal, many of whom had their potatoes collected by the Potato Marketing Board as far back as September, October and November of last year and have not yet been told what the price per ton will be, nor have they been paid. I want to put on record that I do not know any section of the agricultural industry who work as hard as the potato growers in County Donegal. I say that with apologies to no one, either to other farmers in County Donegal or to farmers in any other part of the country. The potato industry in Donegal demands hard work, long hours, dedication and a big effort. All growers, both present and past, involved in the potato growing industry, deserve recognition. It is a hard earned living which has gone wrong in the recent past.
I am not quite sure whether the Potato Marketing Board continues to hold the confidence of the potato growers in County Donegal. I do not want to say they have lost that confidence because I am not sure, but I do know the entire potato industry has got to be reorganised quickly because many people — not all my supporters, many of them are Government supporters who supported the Government in the recent by-election, financially in an effort——