The devil was truly in the detail of the budget last week. The Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Burton, boasted that there would be no cuts to primary weekly social welfare payments. However, the deeper one examines this budget, the more devastating and sinister the cuts become. Despite stating that payments to families at risk of poverty will remain unchanged, it is clear that as a result of changes to the main means testing arrangements, families in receipt of carer's allowance now find that their family income supplement will be cut savagely. Before this callous budget, vulnerable citizens never regarded the carer's allowance as income when applying for family income supplement. Like many Members, I have been contacted by many low-income families who find themselves far worse-off now than before the budget. One woman has four children all under the age of eleven. One of her children has autism and another is being assessed for autism. Her husband is the sole income earner in the family. They depended on family income supplement but as a result of this budget their income will be cut by an incredible €139. This represents a savage cut for a family of six on one income. We have received other similar e-mails. A gentleman with three children aged three, seven and a ten week old baby contacted me. One of the children has Down's syndrome and is cared for at home by his mother while the father holds down a low-income job. This family is facing a cut of €140 to their income. This money is not spent on luxuries but rather on the bare necessities of life. There were no headlines on budget day about these cuts or the impact of these cuts but instead they were sneaked in with the approach of wait and see. Changing eligibility criteria like this is having a devastating impact on low-income families. Despite what the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, said when he described the cuts to social welfare as unpalatable but necessary, there can be no justification for cuts of this scale. Will the Taoiseach agree to reverse these savagely unfair cuts to the income of people on family income supplement who care for loved ones with special needs within the family?
Leaders’ Questions
The decisions taken by Government in drafting the budget are all unpalatable. As Deputy Martin is well aware, there were adjustments of €3.8 billion in the budget for 2012, comprising of €2.2 billion current spending and €1.6 billion in taxation. No matter what way one looks at it, in order to comply with conditions this country has signed up to, it is never an easy choice to decide what is in the best interests of everybody. I made it perfectly clear in speaking before the budget that no single citizen would be left untouched by this.
The well-off are not touched.
The Fine Gael supporters.
However, we reversed the situation concerning the minimum wage by changing the universal social charge threshold from €4,004 to €10,036. This brought 330,000 people out of the universal social charge. In the case of carers and others who are vulnerable, individual circumstances vary from family to family. I come across many individual and personal cases.
The fact of the matter is that we must deal with this issue ourselves because nobody will deal with it for us. From that perspective, starting at the top, the situation was changed in respect of residency and citizenship for those who are exceptionally wealthy, with increased charges and payments to be made through capital gains tax, capital acquisitions tax, DIRT and so on. All of these things, right down the line, impact in one way or another on everybody.
As I stated, the choices are never easy and all of them are unpalatable. We warned about this and in so far as the protection of the vulnerable and those who are under pressure is concerned, be it from mortgage distress or the ravages of unemployment, one tries to balance it out in as fair a way as possible. Any individual circumstance, such as the one the Deputy raised in respect of a family of four, needs to be looked at from an individual perspective and what can be done to help this family in their difficulty. Obviously, until we get to a point where our finances are under control and we can focus on jobs, growth and getting people off the live register and back into the world of work, people will never be fully satisfied. They cannot be fully satisfied in circumstances in which one has to make changes that impact on people's lives in this way.
I am trying to maintain the anonymity of the people who wrote to us. The Taoiseach's answer does not give any sense of understanding the enormity of the impact of this premeditated budgetary change to means test those on family income supplement who are in receipt of the carer's allowance. People are saying they know we have a great deal on our plates but please stand up for them and their families. The writer of the e-mail states the family currently receives €190 in family income supplement — I am skipping paragraphs — but if the carer's allowance is included as income and means tested, this figure will be reduced to only €50 per week. This is not a misprint. The decline in income, from €190 to €50 per week, is unacceptable and cannot be justified.
I received a telephone call from a constituent who indicated that staff in the same company who are earning €90,000 — this did not include the caller — had said the budget is all right because it does not affect them. How in the name of God can anyone in this House claim that this is a fair budget if those who, by definition, are on the lowest tier of the income ladder given that they receive family income supplement are hit to the tune of €140, €100 or €50 per week? While the amounts vary, these are not isolated cases. The common denominator is that people on family income supplement are caring for somebody who needs care. They would not receive the carer's allowance otherwise.
The Deputy's time has expired. He should ask a question.
The Government has been aware of this since September yet it took a decision which is having an enormous, devastating and incredibly damaging impact. The e-mails we are receiving on the budget describe it in language such as being "driven to despair" and "over the brink" or being "unable to deal with it". Some of those affected have mortgages while others do not. I cannot get over that any budget would impose income reductions of this size on families on very low incomes. I highlight this cut because it demonstrates the fundamental dishonesty and unfairness of the budget. The decisions and choices the Government made were wrong and it pursued the wrong strategy to fulfil certain election commitments.
Deputy Martin understands well that the Government had to introduce a budget of this nature because of the circumstances in which the country finds itself.
It had choices.
The common denominator in every contribution made by the Deputy is that he calls on the Government to reverse the cuts. He said we should reverse the cuts he has just described, those introduced last week, the reduction in the allocation for the A5 to the North and the increase in VAT.
There are alternatives.
It is neither possible nor credible to do as he asks. His party did not put forward an alternative solution.
We proposed alternative taxes but the Government did not agree with them.
The Government asked for alternatives and we complied with its request.
The Government did not cut carer's allowance simply because of the job carers do.
The Taoiseach is digging a bigger hole.
Deputy Martin understands that every one of us meets carers who look after their loved ones in the family context. Everybody knows the pressure they are under, the commitment they give and the value they give to the State through the care, consideration——
We have the Taoiseach speaking on tape during the election campaign.
I thank Deputy McGrath for his intervention.
Carers create a saving for the State through their love of kith and kin. This is why carer's allowance was not cut in the budget. I do not know the circumstances of the entire family to whom Deputy Martin refers.
The problem I raise relates to more than one family.
I ask the Deputy to kindly send me the letter in his possession and I will have the individual circumstances of the family investigated.
The e-mails I received were general and will have been received by the Taoiseach also.
As I do not know all the facts of the case to which the Deputy refers, I ask him to give me the letter. Asking me to reverse this cut because it is unfair or unjust is not the answer. The Government has to make choices, none of which is easy or palatable.
This particular cut is affecting a small number of people in a disproportionate manner.
In so far as one can in the circumstances, one tries to protect those who are vulnerable, isolated and caught in a trap. That is why, for instance, we did not touch carers and the universal social charge was changed to reduce the pressure it placed on 330,000 people.
The change to the universal social charge benefited people by €4.
The entire focus of the Government will be on creating jobs and opportunities for people. I ask Deputy Martin to give me a copy of the letter in his possession and I will have the case assessed.
In his state of the nation speech — his address on the state of this part of the nation — the Taoiseach stated: "I want to be the Taoiseach who retrieves Ireland's economic sovereignty".
I am glad Deputy Adams watched it.
Yes, it was amazing. At the weekend, the Taoiseach agreed a new fiscal compact. I mo bharúil, tá an Rialtas tar éis glacadh le coinníollacha an troika agus an fiscal compact seo fosta. Tabharfaidh sé cosaint dos na baincéirí agus an éilít. Cuirfidh sé leis an mbochtanas agus ghearrfaidh sé tuilleadh cruatain ar oibritheoirí. This new effort to regain our sovereignty contains a clear commitment, in clause 4, to introduce what is referred to as a "golden rule" on austerity at constitutional or equivalent level in the Irish legal system. Does the Government intend to place the proposed 0.5% deficit ceiling into the Constitution as required by the agreement? Will the Taoiseach state clearly that such a move will require a referendum? Does he accept that adopting such a policy will have a devastating effect on an already distressed economy? The Government has given a commitment to introduce austerity budgets until 2015. The new proposal would result in austerity budgets in perpetuity. How many more years of austerity will be required after 2015 to bring the deficit to 0.5% of GDP?
Deputy Adams is aware that the country's participation in a programme supersedes the figures mentioned in the political agreement reached in the early hours of last Saturday morning. As he is aware, this political agreement does not yet have legal standing. A great deal of technical work must be done before a text can be presented which will be ratified in various ways by individual countries. The fact that Ireland is in a programme supersedes all of this.
Deputy Adams's statement that I want to be the Taoiseach to retrieve Ireland's sovereignty is true. We do not have our economic sovereignty in the way the Deputy and I would wish because we cannot propose programmes at Government level without securing approval from the paymaster general, if one likes, the troika. From that point of view, I have announced that the Government will introduce a fiscal Bill next spring in respect of most of what is contained in the agreement and the ongoing work in the country.
There is nothing new here. It is in everybody's interests that fiscal discipline and control are exercised by countries in drafting their budgets. Deputy Adams should not have the impression that our philosophy is that a generation of austerity is before us. If we do not fix the engine of our economy, we will not have a country. The fact of the matter is that the rate of borrowing on a daily basis needs to change and it will change. When we make the changes that are needed, they will have an impact on growth, development, investment in jobs and job creation. Until that happens, we will not have the kind of country where we can stand with our own sovereignty, which is what I and — I assume — the Deputy would like. The political agreement that was reached last Friday will be the subject of detailed analysis and consideration by officials in all the countries before a text is presented. That text will have to be assessed to ascertain whether it conforms with the Constitution. If it conforms with the Constitution, the advice of the Attorney General obviously will be clear. If it does not and a referendum must be held, then a referendum will be held. Let us be quite clear on that. I want the Deputy to understand that we cannot have the necessary growth, development, job creation and career opportunities for the young people in the Gallery, and their peers around Ireland, until the engine of our economy is fixed. Our economy is in a poor state at the moment because of the state of our public finances. In such circumstances, we have to move forward and rectify these problems.
I do not believe the Taoiseach does not see the huge contradiction between his assertion about restoring our economic sovereignty and his decision to sign up to giving away even more of our economic sovereignty as part of the fiscal compact. This morning, he shared with us a fine letter he wrote to President van Rompuy. The letter states, among other things, that the Taoiseach intended to raise the question of reducing Ireland's debt during the European Council meeting. It is set out in some detail in the letter. The Taoiseach planned to raise the matter and to explain to his colleagues the cost to Ireland of capitalising the banks in a manner that protected European and Irish citizens. The Taoiseach told us at this morning's briefing that he did not raise the matter. I wonder if he forgot to do so. Did he leave the letter behind? Was he tired? Why did he not raise the matter? He has failed to put it on the agenda at any of the umpteen summits that have taken place since he took office. Can he explain to the Dáil the rationale for not raising the most pressing issue that faces the people? It seems we will keep paying huge amounts of money to Anglo Irish Bank and other criminal banks. The Taoiseach did not raise that at the weekend, which is bad enough, even though he had written to them to tell them he would raise it.
He was trying to frighten them.
There was a music outfit one time called Mike and the Mechanics. They used to sing a song called "Isn't it Amazing?".
That is true.
This morning, Deputy Adams attended a private briefing for the leaders of Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin and the Technical Group. What he is now saying is not what he was told. It is not a case of me forgetting, or a case of me not wanting to say something.
I did not say the Taoiseach forgot. I asked what happened.
It is a case of Deputy Adams deliberately misinterpreting what I said this morning. I said I raised it at the Council meeting. I presented our case on the basis of the challenge that now faces the Irish people. Before the bailout, this country borrowed €63 billion at excessive interest rates in order to recapitalise the banks. It was the equivalent of 50% of our GDP. I made the point, as an example to other countries of what we face here, that we should be able to use the current facilities that are available under the EFSF and will be available under the ESM to get into a position where we can pay that off at lower interest rates over a longer period, with a very substantial saving for the Irish taxpayer.
Hear, hear.
If Deputy Adams did not hear that this morning, either he or his adviser does not understand plain English. I thought I made it very clear.
He must not be paying his adviser enough. He needs a more expensive one.
It is amazing that Deputy Adams has shown the audacity to come in here and say what he has said. As one of his peers in Northern Ireland from a different party used to say, "don't put words in my mouth".
Someone should put words in the Taoiseach's mouth.
I took note of what the Taoiseach said. He said he did not raise it at the Council meeting. What did they say to him? Did they send him a "Dear John" letter?
I did raise it.
For the record, the Taoiseach's figures are wrong. We did not borrow €63 billion at that time. If that is what the Taoiseach is telling them, they are probably laughing at him behind the tables or the doors. He needs to get his figures right if he wants to engage in serious negotiations.
Deputy Doherty will have his time in leadership in a few years' time.
A number of cuts in disability and mental health services were outlined during the speeches in the Dáil on last week's budget. There was a lot of talk about protecting the vulnerable. A figure of 2% was mentioned on page 13 of the address that was made by the Minister, Deputy Howlin. I was aware that the service providers were in the middle of talks at the time. They said they were prepared to meet the Government half way by accepting a cut of 1.8% and making a small reduction in their services. The Taoiseach can imagine my shock and horror yesterday when I was told the Government and the HSE are demanding cuts of between 5.5% and 7% in disability services. Is the Taoiseach aware of this information? Is it correct? Can he use his authority to bring this to an end? Is the Government demanding cuts of up to 7% in day care, respite and residential services? Does it not know that disability services are already in crisis? They are suffering enough without sticking the knife in further and cutting more. Did the Taoiseach not learn from last week's row about the disability allowance that it is wrong to cut and damage our disability services? Of course he will mention the economic crisis, but I remind him that a 1% wealth tax would raise more than €800 million. I ask the Taoiseach to end the cuts to disability services. How does he justify taking 250 teachers from the most disadvantaged communities in the State and increasing class ratios from 15:1 to 22:1? I ask the Taoiseach not to wreck our disability services, which are already in crisis and in need our support.
The Deputy has covered a range of subjects. Money has been ring-fenced for the provision of mental health services. The Government made it perfectly clear that rather than mental health services being sidelined as they were for years, they are being brought to the centre of the delivery of normal health services. That is the way it should be and that is the way it will be. The Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, is dealing with that area competently. The disability allowance issue, which was dealt with last week, is under review by the chairperson of the advisory group on the integration of taxation and social welfare. She will report to the Minister for Social Protection in due course. The Deputy also asked about teachers in disadvantaged schools. The DEIS schools have been protected.
No, they have not.
The DEIS schools have not been protected.
There is a legacy in respect of schools that might be termed as semi-DEIS schools.
Has the Taoiseach any idea of what is going on? The DEIS schools have been savaged.
I remind Deputy Martin that legacy issues have been there for quite a long time.
The Taoiseach should speak to Deputy Ó Ríordáin.
Existing DEIS schools are protected.
Nine teachers are gone from three DEIS schools in Deputy Coveney's constituency on the south side of Cork.
The Deputy should not be so rowdy.
The Government does not even know what it has done.
The situation is that changes in numbers will have a certain impact on teachers in some schools with legacy DEIS issues.
If something has the word "disadvantage", the Government goes for it.
It will not happen to the extent that has been suggested.
It will happen to a savage extent. I have mentioned the loss of nine teachers.
Deputy Finian McGrath will be quite aware of the significance of the protection of the pupil-teacher ratio in primary schools. If that had been altered, obviously it would have given rise to a very different kind of argument.
What about one-teacher, two-teacher, three-teacher and four-teacher schools?
I remind Deputy Finian McGrath that the relevant Standing Order allows for a brief question on one topic. I ask him to confine his supplementary questions to a single topic.
I would like to give the Taoiseach some facts on the disability issue. Is he aware that St. Michael's House disability services have been told to accept a cut of 5.5%, increasing to 7%? Services for the blind have been told to take a cut of 5.5%. As a result, St. Joseph's Centre for the Visually Impaired on Grace Park Road on the north side of Dublin will lose €350,000. Jobs will be lost even though the staff of the centre took a voluntary 10% pay cut last year. The Disability Federation of Ireland has been contacted by its members who have been told to take a cut of 4.7%. This is the real front line world for the families of children and adults with disabilities. I was told by people from one of the services yesterday that they had not seen the like of such cuts for more than 30 years. They want to know what the hell is going on here.
Does the Taoiseach realise that if residential places and services for adults with intellectual disabilities are closed down, in cases where parents die or there is a family crisis, in addition to the consequent humiliation, sadness, grief and trauma involved, the service provider will be forced to outsource to a private service which will cost taxpayers more money? From a humane perspective this is madness but even the economics are crazy.
In regard to mental health, does the Taoiseach find it acceptable in this day and age that five mentally ill women should be locked up over Christmas in St. Brendan's centre in Grangegorman because of lack of funding? I ask the Taoiseach to use the so-called €35 million promised in the budget so that these women can be respected and there be a compatible solution.
That is a subject matter for a Topical Issue debate, to be discussed later.
I do not have the information Deputy McGrath has in regard to the person who spoke to him about a situation applying at Christmas. That time has not yet arrived but if the Deputy wishes to supply details to the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, I am sure she will be prepared to look at the situation.
I take the Deputy's point about having to revert to private services. One of the great problems experienced by many families in both urban and rural Ireland is getting people to call to houses or to stay overnight to provide assistance and support where necessary. As Deputy McGrath is aware, there is a whole range of such cases. Yesterday I met a group from Roscommon who provide a not-for-profit service which costs approximately €15 per hour. This complements the HSE home help service although most private agencies charge a minimum of €20 per hour for similar services. The group already has some 200 people involved who, in many cases, will stay overnight in a household where that is necessary and appropriate. They are all vetted and their PRSI is paid. The savings to the Department of Health would be considerable if that model were to be adopted on a much broader scale.
They do not have an accident and emergency department.
Regarding the dearer private services which the Deputy mentioned, I have only just been made aware of the capacity of this model to provide a first-class, additional or complementary service on a non-profit basis, at a big saving to the taxpayer. I will bring this to the attention of the Minister of Health for his consideration. If the model were to be applied and if it worked credibly and effectively in people's interest, it would be preferable to paying huge moneys to other organisation which charge far more.
There will be a considerable crisis over the Christmas period.