The main difference between the budget and previous budgets is in presentation. It was well packaged and received a good profile from the media. In previous years Ministers for Finance attempted to soften the public in advance by frightening it with the bad news to ensure that people were pleased with the budget because they expected to be worse off. However, on this occasion a positive spin was put on matters. Nevertheless people are not easily taken in and attempts to convince them that they will be better off from April will not succeed. People are not that easily conned or bought.
There are no obvious banana skins in the budget. However, it is disappointing. We all like to think that there is much we could do if we were in a position of power and had the resources at our disposal that were available this year. We are all aware of matters that are not properly attended to. However, when the opportunity presented itself to the Minister and the Government this year they were afraid to take any action. They were afraid of making an error and afraid to give more to one group over another.
While it may be described as fair, the budget was boring and it lacked ideas and imagination. The governing concept appears to be not to rock the boat and to keep all interests on board. Consequently, benefits were spread evenly to ensure all received their fair share. However, what is the point in being in power if one wishes to spread it in an even way? The budget does not grapple with reform or with the problems we all know exist. A monkey or computer could be programmed to divide the largesse and give an equal share to all. It was boring, probably because we knew it all in advance. However, many of the leaks were incorrect. For example, the Irish Independent ran a story based on a leak that all social welfare payments would be brought forward by two months. That did not happen but they got their spin for the day from it. The date was brought forward by two weeks, which was a good move, but there is a big difference between two months and two weeks. The budget was full of rhetoric, wonderful words and gloss in a nice package, but it had little content.
One of the main tacks of many speakers was to attack Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats and try to drive a wedge between the parties. The Democratic Left Ministers of State, Deputy McManus and Deputy Rabbitte, and Deputy Eric Byrne obviously all read from the same script. However, it is nonsense. All political parties have their own views and Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats have different policies on several issues. However, that does not mean two parties are not capable of sitting down and working out a reasonable coalition. The important aspect of any deal between political parties is that it is kept and that they trust each other.
I have no difficulty with the Progressive Democrats or any other party. It is reasonable for a party to argue its case, set out its policies and push as hard as possible to have them implemented. The important point when a deal is made and hands are shook is that the agreement is kept. Fianna Fáil had a very bad experience with the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Spring, as leader of the Labour Party. Twice in 1994 the leader of the Fianna Fáil Party and the current leader, Deputy Ahern, shook hands with the Tánaiste but the deal was off by the following morning. There is no advantage in parties having similar policies if their relationship is not built on trust. It is much more acceptable if parties of differing views come together, make a deal and keep it.
I am amazed that Democratic Left Deputies made so much play about the stability of the Government. Every Government is stable until it comes apart. I do not understand how they could make such a big play about that aspect because the history of their party does not show much stability. It appears to have a type of Chinese purge every few years and it must have had four or five different name changes in the last 20 years. Every time the going gets tough or there is another point of view in the party, they have a purge, move next door, come up with a new name and start all over again.
Only yesterday in the debate on the Employment Equality Bill, there were signs that this great, stable and cohesive Government is coming apart. While they may put a spin on it and try to pretend the Government is stable, deep differences came to light yesterday and on Committee Stage of the Bill. I hope the election is held soon because the Government has made efforts recently to head off every problem at the pass. The Government can do that for a short time but it cannot do it forever because the country would be broke. One cannot buy oneself out of problems all the time.
The budget was disappointing. There was much talk and packaging but there is something wrong when society has up to £600 million to spend, its economy is growing and it has the resources but it refuses to give priority to tackling the major problems of poverty, social exclusion and unemployment. The Government had the resources, and more resources are coming on stream as a result of economic growth, but they were badly allocated. They were not aimed at attacking or solving any of the real problems.
The increases in payments to the elderly look better than last year but £3 is not a big deal. A speaker this morning said the increases in social welfare are ahead of the rate of inflation. What does that mean in the context of the last couple of years? We are told that the salaries and standards of living of people in employment have greatly increased. How can people be told that if they are in employment they can expect 5 per cent of 10 per cent increases every year but if they are elderly they can only expect rate of inflation increases? The social welfare increases, particularly to the elderly, have been very poor and that is a judgment on society in terms of how it deals with its elderly. It is essential that the fruits of economic growth are distributed fairly but that has not been the case in respect of the elderly over the last couple of years.
I am glad the Minister slightly increased the age allowance. Many elderly and retired people have a small private pension and they are bitterly disappointed that, having worked all their lives, they are still in the tax net. The age allowance was introduced over ten years ago as an inducement to people to declare that they had a pension rather than to solve equity problems. The Minister increased the allowance but only nominally. A substantial increase should be provided for those people. It is wrong that people who worked all their lives are still in the tax net just because they have a small pension.
Another social welfare issue concerns me. Members who deem themselves left wing talk about their concern that the social insurance fund will be damaged, but Members on the economic right wing are constantly pushing for the reduction of PRSI. The extreme left and right on economic issues appear to be coming together on this matter and I am concerned that the social welfare fund may fall between the combined attack of the left and right. The Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, provided a good analysis of this point. He outlined a table which broke down the tax and social insurance demands on salaries in other EU countries. This showed that social insurance is relatively low in Ireland but the income tax take is one of the highest. The Minister of State laid out his store which appeared impressive but his party leader, the Minister for Social Welfare, did the opposite. The PRSI reduction obviously was not a Democratic Left part of the budget.
I am also concerned about the increases for people on contributory pensions. For example, a couple on a contributory old age pension will receive £4.50 from the budget but a couple on a non-contributory old age pension, provided they have no other means, will receive £6. There appears to be a dilution of people paying into the fund. I support people who contribute to the social welfare fund. There should be a greater difference between contributory and non-contributory benefit, but we seem to be closing the gap and diluting the strength of the social welfare fund. That has long-term consequences and, if it continues, in ten years' time every social welfare benefit will be means-tested. The Minister for Social Welfare, who projects himself as concerned about the social welfare fund, is working from two ideologies which are very different.
There is much talk about social exclusion but, regrettably, little has been done about it in this budget. Those in need must be looked after, but much money is handed to people for doing nothing. Socialist ideologists would say that we feed people so that they may contribute. Rather than giving unemployed people £5, £10 or £20 more, we should encourage them into employment. We should certainly give them more money but we should ask something of them in return, as is done in socialist countries.
As with the land set-aside scheme, in recent years the unemployed have been set aside. We give them a certain payment and hope it will keep them quiet, that they will not demand more, but we are doing nothing for them. While new jobs are being created and the economy is growing, we are not reaching the poorer areas of the inner city or the suburbs that were built in the past 20 years where many people have been housed and are expected to survive. In previous budgets the opportunity to solve the problems of those people was not available but this year, even though there was an opportunity to help them, the Government did not grasp the nettle.
While the Minister quotes attractive figures for the number of new jobs created — 45,000 last year and hopefully the same number this year — on average the unemployment figure was reduced by only about 1,000 last year, with the long-term unemployment figure reduced by only about 300. Our efforts have not been directed at those most in need. As in all budgets, choices were made in this budget. While resources were allocated, poverty and unemployment were not a priority. Is it too much to ask that every person has sufficient resources to live life with dignity, has meaningful work and adequate shelter and is able to participate in a real way in society? Resources exist, but because of the choices made in this budget many people will miss out on them. Something should be done about the people who have been excluded by society in recent years.
The back to work scheme, introduced by Deputy Woods when he was Minister for Social Welfare, seems to be a central part of social welfare policy. Some scheme must be devised, particularly geared at people who are socially excluded, whether it be the back to work scheme, workfare scheme, a scheme such as that proposed by the Conference of Religious of Ireland, a beefed up community employment scheme or area allowance scheme. Something must be done to find jobs for people on the dole, whether in private firms or working for the local partnership or environment group, local authority or whatever. Many areas are run down and there is no end to the amount of work available. That work could be carried out by the unemployed, even on the basis of three or four days a week.
A school teacher in my constituency told me that some children come to school at 10.30 a.m. or 10.45 a.m. and when asked why they are late they say that their mother did not wake them in time. Those parents need a reason to get up in the morning. They need a discipline that encourages them to go to bed at a reasonable hour so that they will get up in time to send their children to school. Those people have been set aside from the community and nothing is being done for them. Many of them, while accommodated in reasonable housing, live in dreadful conditions in terms of their general surroundings. They should be given employment, be it tidying their community, creating play facilities for their children and so on. Much could be done in that regard.
There is a multitude of schemes but not enough people are involved. A few years ago the favourite scheme was the community employment scheme, yet the numbers on that scheme have been frozen for the past two years. People on unemployment assistance should be given a job for at least a couple of days a week. It would give people a reason to try. When going to bed at night, a person wants to feel that he has earned money, dignity and respect for his family and community. We must direct our efforts at that.