There is no point in arguing the point. The Minister made my point clear by saying that at budget time all he can do is work on the predictions. It is interesting to note that even with the Fine Gael-Labour Government in 1986, the long term unemployed got something extra on the general 4 per cent increase to bring them up to 5 per cent. In every year after 1987, which was a particularly difficult year, up to this year something was done about people on the lowest levels, and the table bears this out. There has been some debate about whether we should ask questions at this time. The purpose of a Committee Stage is to ask questions, in fact, Deputy Liam Fitzgerald highlighted that, pointing out this Stage gave Members an opportunity to elaborate on the provisions of this and all Bills. While that may be a tedious procedure, it forms an essential component of our democracy. It ensures that the provisions of a Bill are made clear, going beyond the public relations exercise. Otherwise everything becomes a public relations exercise, with statements, sometimes slight misrepresentations, certainly a great deal of bluster.
Deputy Lynch referred to the surplus money. That arose from unemployment figures being down, employment figures going up, from increased contributions, and fraud and abuse detection by the Department having been partricular good in the past year.
In the circumstances in which we now find ourselves it is clear from these discussions that, in relation to the actual money, the Minister is providing fewer funds this year for those on all the combined social insurance benefits, even taking into account the early payment dates. When I was faced with a choice of advancing payment dates or paying a higher rate, I knew that, if I paid a higher rate recipients would have had that amount in their pockets thereafter. While I would have liked to have advanced the payment dates also, I chose to put the money in their pockets. Any recipient faced with that option; knowing that he or she will not have that increase for six weeks only but consistently thereafter, would choose to take the greater increase. Certainly, they would not want a smaller increase paid a few weeks earlier.
This section deals with unemployment benefit, with all old age pensioners, whether they be retirement pensioners or old age contributory pensioners, and provides payments for widows, invalidity pensioners, widowers, under the survivor's scheme — a very important and large sector of our community — receiving less money in actual terms than last year. The figures given by Deputy Walsh demonstrate that the total was £47 million for this sector last year and is £38 million this year. The sum of £47 million last year, taking into account increases granted this year, with inflation and so on probably would amount to £55 million; instead they will receive £38 million this year. Therefore, in real money terms, this sector will receive less money. They are being granted a 2.5 per cent increase, based, as I think the Minister is aware, marginally on the predicted inflation rate only at this time, compared with last year when they received 5.9 per cent plus an additional 3.8 per cent, minimal.
Therefore, it is clear that the total allocation of money to these recipients, or the transfer to them from their own fund, is being reduced. The percentage increase granted them is less at 2.5 per cent and is likely to be below the prevailing rate of inflation bearing in mind the present position of the financial markets.
From the list the Minister provided it is clear that approximately 74 per cent of these people will not benefit from the child benefit increase. There is no point in getting into a bluster about this; we are all in favour of child benefit. I set up the committee which recommended this increase. While they recommended an immediate £5 increase the £7 increase granted by this Government is very welcome as our child benefit is low anyway, but one must recognise that people who do not have children cannot benefit. Old age pensioners have no other compensation so, as far as this section is concerned, approximately 58 per cent of those on unemployment benefit will not be eligible for child benefit.
We need to get this in perspective. The Minister has made a very serious error of judgment here. While he probably made it with the best will in the world he has made a serious error, leaving a very large number of people with a very marginal increase of 2.5 per cent. While investing the money in child benefit, which is very welcome, he should have insisted that other beneficiaries were allocated something of the order of 3 per cent at least which will be necessary to maintain them apace with or ahead of the rate of inflation.
There has been no move toward the implementation of the rates recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare. The Minister may recall decisions in the past, inferring that I had reversed payments. He knows I was not the Minister at the time. He knows also there were amalgamations of other benefits with injury benefits, an exceptional circumstance. No amount of blustering gets away from the hard fact that what is happening here is very much what Deputy Liam Fitzgerald said, a reduction for old age pensioners, a hard blow to those people who have paid into the fund, when the fund is in good order, capable of paying them at least the kind of increases they received in recent years. This year something better should have been done for them. All of that has been left aside — I would say in charity — mistakenly.
The Minister said he has taken a very hard line approach, contending that what he is doing is in his view the best approach, that there is no way he is going to change it. That leads me to question whether there is any point in discussing these matters on Committee Stage. Effectively, the Minister is saying to old age pensioners, widows' contributory pensioners and invalidity pensioners who receive little enough, "live horse, and you will get grass". He is saying he might be able to do something for them in future budgets. They should not have to await the end of the rainbow to get their just desserts or the money they contributed to his insurance fund; that is the harsh reality. While in charity the Minister has done something valuable on child benefit, continuing with what the Fianna Fáil-Labour Government had done, constituting an increase of almost £5 on the preceding year's allocation, nonetheless the Minister has made a serious mistake and should reconsider the position of those people in this sector.