The Minister said the wonderful £3 and £1 increases were applied across the board. However, the Minister of State, speaking in the House on 5 March when the Minister was away — and I thank the Minister for his note saying he would not be able to attend — said this had to be seen in the context of three years of improvements. This was the third budget and third set of improvements to social welfare from the Rainbow Coalition.
It is particularly striking if one takes together the improvements to the basic rates for an old age pensioner over the three years. The Minister referred to that at the end of his contribution. He came back to the 113 per cent figure for old age contributory pensions in relation to the 1997 terms of the Commission on Social Welfare, but, in fact, the actual increase for an old age pensioner was £2.33 per week per year on average for the three years; the average for a widow was £2.20 per week per year and a person on disability or on long-term unemployment assistance would receive £2.17 per week per year. I think the Minister will agree that these are not great increases. Pensioners are aware of the reality — three years of the Rainbow Coalition have not seen good basic increases in pensions.
The Minister says the figures have increased in global terms but he neglects to say the disabled person's maintenance allowance — which is now the DA or disability allowance — has been transferred to social welfare and accounts for approximately £140 million. It can be quite confusing to talk in global figures because of the changes that have taken place. The Christmas bonus is now included in the figures at the beginning of the year whereas in previous years it was not included in the budget. That means a further £40 million approximately is included at the beginning of the year. People should be given such figures to compare like with like.
In comparing like with like one finds — and the Minister might also find this, to his horror and amazement — that the Minister has not really done as well as he thinks. This is especially so when one considers the actual increase for the person involved. What does it mean for an old age pensioner? The Minister say he is happy because the rate of the old age contributory pension now is 113 per cent of that recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare. That sounds very good compared to the 1996 rate of 111 per cent, but if we look back to 1994 we find the old age pension was actually at 116 per cent compared to 113 per cent in 1997 under the Rainbow Coalition.
What pensioners are telling us is clearly borne out by the figures. First and foremost, it is borne out by the low level of increase which results in an average weekly increase of £2.33 per week for an old age contributory pension over the three years. That is a meagre sum for pensioners who constitute a large group of people. It represents the bread and butter of social welfare. Pensioners depend on the Government to ensure they are looked after and that their pensions keep pace with developments.
The reality, borne out by the figures, is that the percentage increases in pensions have gone backwards since 1994. In 1994 the percentage was 116, in 1996 it had fallen back to 111 per cent, while the amount in June 1997 will represent 113 per cent. So, increases have gone backwards, even when measured against the consumer price index. That is bad news from the pensioners' viewpoint.
In most cases an old age contributory pension is for a male pensioner with a dependent spouse. The Minister mentioned an increase for such dependent spouses of £1.50. There are 120,000 adult dependants, most of whom are women. The increase for an adult dependant was on average, £1.17 per year for each of the past three years. A dependant over 66 but under 80 years of age on a non-contributory pension will receive £40 per week. The Minister of State boasted about this figure but people are now worse off. Democratic Left or the Labour Party did not promise people an increase of £1.17 per year. The partners in Government have succeeded in pulling the wool over people's eyes.
The Government claims to have made improvements in other areas of social welfare. Old age pensioners account for approximately 25 per cent of the total budget; unemployed people also represent 25 per cent and a great deal of work must be done to reduce this figure. Old age pensioners depend on us for their bread and butter. These figures are the cumulative effect of three budgets and three Social Welfare Bills. My predecessor, Deputy Joe Walsh, complained last year about how little was given to such people, although more was given to them this year.
It is important to bear in mind that since most pensioners do not have another income they are in a vulnerable position. They depend on us to ensure they get a share of the profits generated by the growth in the economy. Over the past few years increases have kept pace with or exceeded inflation. Our economy is booming and people are doing well.
The Buckley report recommended that salaries for department secretaries and assistant secretaries and the higher levels of the public service and semi-State bodies should be increased substantially because of the extra wealth being created. There was also a recommendation to increase Members' salaries by 3 per cent, with which I do not agree. Members are the main element of our democratic process and should be treated better. Gross domestic product in 1995 and 1996 and the forecast for this year is 10.1 per cent, 7.4 per cent and 6.5 per cent, respectively. This has been achieved because of the work done under the social partnership and the fact that workers have contained their demands and increased productivity.
When the country is doing well, old age pensioners should also do well and their payments should not just keep pace with inflation, which is a pre-Maastricht concept. Part of the Maastricht Treaty was that interest rates and inflation should be low and growth should be high. We must ensure that pensioners share in that growth. Pensioners, widows and people on disability payments should be given more. That is why I tabled amendment No. 4, which will probably be ruled out of order. We depend on the Government to ensure that such people get a slice of the cake. Amendment No. 4 states that the "recommendation of the Commission on Social Welfare in relation to a common basic payment or minimally adequate payment shall be reviewed in the context of the projected growth in the economy to ensure that payments are adequate for the needs of pensioners". We argued with the Government over the past two years that more should be done because growth was good.