Ba mhaith liom mo chuid ama a roinnt leis an Teachta Mac Gabhann.
Ag féachaint ar chúlra an Bhille seo agus an phróiséas a chuaigh roimhe tá sé deacair do dhuine a chreidiúint gurb é an tAire seo a chuir an Bille os comhair na Dála.
Bhí an cúlra eacnamaíochta níos fearr ná mar a bhí sé le beagnach 30 bliana anuas. Dá mba Aire de chuid Fhianna Fáil a bhí in oifig bheifí á cháineadh go géar dá mbronfadh sé méadú níos lú ná cuíg nó sé faoin gcéad — nó b'fhéidir ocht faoin gcéad atá sa bhuiséad go ginearálta. Gan dabht bheadh an tAire seo agus a chomh Theachtaí sa Daonlathas Clé chun tosaigh agus an tAire bocht á chur faoi bhrú acu. Nach bhféadfaí an tAire seo a shamhlú lasmuigh de Gheataí Shráid Chill Dara agus é ag gearáin faoin ardú náireach a bhí faighte ag daoine bochta agus sa phinsean do shean daoine. Nach iontach na hAirí a bhíonn le fáil ar bhinsí an Fhreasúra agus nach lag an iarracht a dheineann siad nuair a théann siad trasna an tseomra anseo.
The provisions of the Social Welfare Bill, as announced in the budget, were greeted with widespread disbelief and disappointment. There were two main reasons hopes were high that the problems of poverty and social exclusion would be addressed in a meaningful and imaginative manner. On the economic front this budget came after a year in which a current budget surplus was recorded for the first time in 27 years. It is also set against a background of substantial transfer of resources from the EU. Besides this, it had been clearly flagged in advance that this Government was not in the business of controlling current spending as evidenced by the planned deficit of £310 million in 1995 and total Exchequer borrowing of £813 million. Even in the worst years when Fianna Fáil-led Governments were attempting to put the economy back on the rails after the profligacy and incompetence of previous Governments, particularly from 1982 to 1987, provisions of 3 per cent, 4 per cent and 5 per cent were made for social welfare recipients. The successful rebuilding of the economy was achieved without penalising the poorer sections of the economy.
Quite independently of the excellent economic background to this budget, hopes were high that the new Minister for Social Welfare, representing Democratic Left, would ensure that the needs of those in the poverty trap were adequately addressed. People who, for a long time, were conditioned to doubt the credentials of the major parties on this issue looked to Democratic Left to deliver. They remembered the care and concern of Deputy De Rossa in 1989 when he branded the failure to provide adequate increases in social welfare payments as particularly cruel. This was in a year when a general increase of 3 per cent was provided, plus a special increase of 9 per cent for the long term unemployed. Last year he said the miserable increase told its own story. This year, as the Minister with the cheque book in his hand, he has provided a 2.5 per cent increase across the board for which he has rightly been roundly criticised given his record on this matter. The reason there is such a high level of disappointment is that he attacked previous Governments for providing greater increases.
It is worrying that the figure of 2.5 per cent is less than the projected inflation rate of 2.8 per cent and likely to be substantially less than the eventual inflation rate. It, therefore, represents a real drop in income for many social welfare recipients. On a political level it marks a betrayal of those who expected their needs to be catered for in the current financial climate. Do the people caught in poverty traps and in receipt of long term social welfare payments cast their vote less frequently than other sections of society as there is some evidence to suggest they are being left behind, particularly on this occasion?
A mini industry developed in depicting Fianna Fáil politicians as deeply untrustworthy and unreliable. Fianna Fáil Ministers for Social Welfare were subjected to mistreatment in this regard. Because of the smears many people were directed away from the party in the many elections held in recent years. Gradually the creators of this negative image also attracted this image with the result that for many people the idea of a reliable and trustworthy politician is unthinkable. Is it any wonder that this is the case when the transfer from the Opposition benches to the Government side can have such a traumatic effect and the major concern is so infrequently translated into constructive action?
The Minister has a difficult task as the social welfare budget places a major burden on the Exchequer. This year it will be of the order of £4 billion. The difficulty is that a large proportion of the population is dependent on the relatively small number of people who create wealth. Some people make the mistake of thinking that only the short and long term unemployed are dependent on the State; they forget that old age pensioners and a large number of young people also depend on the State. The high unemployment rate adds to the difficulties. As politicians, we would serve the people better by painting the true picture as the many interest groups appear to think the State is a soft touch.
A previous Government attempted to resolve some of the problems in the social welfare code by taxing social welfare benefit. As the Minister of State, Deputy Durkan, pointed out, in some instances this caused even greater difficulties. He also indicated it is his intention, and that of the Minister, to try to resolve them and a slight move has been made in this direction. However, he must not have been listening very carefully as virtually every speaker on this side of the House welcomed certain sections of the Bill which mark a move in the right direction but he failed to acknowledge this. He attempted to suggest that my colleague, Deputy Ó Cuív, proposed the taxation of child benefit. I listened to Deputy Ó Cuív's contribution and he did not propose this. He made the point that child benefit is paid to everybody, regardless of means, and not confined to those in a poverty trap.
The justice office of the Conference of Religious of Ireland issues an annual report which tends to become the bible for the Opposition parties. It argues that a radical overhaul of the social welfare system is required and is scathing in its criticism of this Bill. What value do the Minister and the Department put on this suggestion? There is a need to increase the basic payment as a matter of urgency.
