Vol. 401 No. 1
8 Mr. Spring asked the Minister for Social Welfare if the views of the chairman of the ESRI to the effect that the poor have not suffered as a result of the cutbacks of the last three years have been brought to his attention; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
56 Mr. Spring asked the Minister for Social Welfare his views on the remarks made by the chairman of the Economic and Social Research Institute to the effect that the poor have not suffered as a result of the cutbacks during the last three years; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 and 56 together.
I have read Professor McAleese's recent article in the Irish Banking Review with interest. Given the significant improvement in the Irish economy in recent years the article aims to examine the changes in Irish fiscal policy and how these have affected different sections of the community. The analyses are based on the key economic indicators over the 1986-89 period, and on the increases in the incomes of various groups. The article concludes that the process of fiscal adjustment did not involve a burden on any major sector of society, because, it is stated, the adjustment process led to growth rather than halted it. The report therefore concludes that “Ireland seems to have brought off a dramatic double; a significant adjustment in the country's fiscal balance combined with a resurgence of GNP growth and greater spread of the benefits of growth.”
I do not consider it appropriate to enter into a debate on the merits of what is an academic economic paper. I would say, however, that the analysis is at a broad macro level and to gain a full picture of the impact of the adjustment process on different sectors of the community would require further study, including detailed data on household incomes and living conditions.
In relation to social welfare services the analysis refers to the percentage adjustments in social welfare rates over the period 1986-89, and documents the Government's success in implementing increases in rates, in many cases considerably in excess of the inflation rate.
Over the period 1987-90, I have raised the personal rate of long term unemployment assistance by 41.5 per cent, representing an increase of 25.4 per cent in real terms. This may be contrasted with an equivalent increase of 14 per cent in the period 1983-86. Similarly, I have increased the minimum payment for child dependants from just over £8 per week in 1986 to a minimum of £11 in 1990.
Increases of this order have contributed significantly to improving the living conditions of the poorer sections of our community. However, there is scope for further improvements. I intend, in future budgets to continue my policy of focusing resources on those most in need.
I would like to assure Deputies that the Government's commitment, set out in the Programme for National Recovery, to improve the position of those on the lowest incomes will continue to be the focus of our attention as the adjustments which have been made in the economy bear fruit over the coming years.
First, I should say to the Minister that one can produce statistics to prove anything. I would respectfully submit that the statistic advanced by his eminent right-wing professor would not confirm what we hear on the ground. Whereas the Minister has maintained incomes in the social welfare categories in line with inflation, would he agree that his Department and the Government have rendered it more difficult for people to qualify for some benefits for which they automatically qualified in the past, with fewer contributions? In other words, entry into some of these categories has been rendered more difficult. Furtheremore, would he agree that, since he assumed office, under this and the preceding Government overall spending in his Department in relation to GNP has been reduced by 1 per cent? Therefore, I do not know how the professor arrived at these statistics.
The overall expenditure of my Department is up rather than down. The Deputy is referring to the net position. Obviously by including the self-employed the net position is changed as distinct from the overall position. The amount paid to people is what constitutes the overall total. The overall payment in 1986 was £2,513 million, and in 1990 it was £2,793 million. The amount has been increasing while, at the same time, there has been a considerable improvement in efficiency and very substantial savings which have been ploughed back into the system, that is, a broad macro-economic study looking very much at the overall picture. We used the detailed research on poverty which was prepared as part of the second EC poverty programme. That research indicated that certain groups in the community such as households headed by an unemployed person, parents with large numbers of children and lone parents are at risk of poverty. That is why I have been taking steps in recent budgets to improve their position in particular.
Would the Minister agree that the quality of life of the poor is affected by the actions of Government and various Government Ministers? Will the Minister agree that while the Department of Social Welfare might have kept spending on those classified as in the poverty net up to a reasonable level, the effects on the quality of life in the fields of health and education for people on low incomes in local authority houses was disastrous and the proof of this is that 40,000 people have to emigrate annually?
Deputy Byrne, I would like you to be relevant and brief and not make statements. The Deputy should seek information rather than passing it on.
It is possible to agree with the Minister that his Department might have kept spending to a relevant pitch, but would he agree that the effects of the decisions of his other Government colleagues have undermined the quality of life and created greater poverty traps for the poor?
The report points to the fact that in 1986 £1,154 million was spent on health and in 1990 the figure was £1,312 million. That again is an increase. Over this period the overall economic policy has been to keep inflation low and we have succeeded in that. In education the amount was £1,013 million and that has risen in 1990 to £1,303 million. Taking these macro-economic indicators into account there is no doubt that the increased allocations have gone to those sectors. The report would not deal with how the money is spent within a sector.
The answer we are getting here is that the poor did not suffer. What we are saying is that our information is that the poor have suffered irrespective of the figures the Minister can give. It has been made much more difficult for the poor to qualify for benefits as a result of the actions of this Government and the Minister's Department. The poor have suffered.
We are having statements rather than questions.
In fairness, there are poor in the country.
Please, this is Question Time, Deputy Ferris.
The Minister is responsible for the spending of £2,700 million——
This is not good enough. I shall have to call the next question. Progress at Question Time today has been particularly disappointing. We have been able to dispose of only six questions in three quarters of an hour. That is not good enough.
That is not the fault of this party.
I want to ask a straight question about the ability to qualify: farm incomes have dropped so low this year they are being assessed on the figures fixed in 1989.
A question, Deputy McCormack.
The only figures available to the Department of Social Welfare were based on the 1988 income level for farmers. Farmers who now have to apply for social welfare because they have no income are being assessed on their income in 1988. They are not being assessed on their real incomes this year. Can the Minister do anything about that?
That is a separate question. Since 1987 the position of farmers has been considerably improved by the removal of the rural rate, the levels of increase that have been given to farmers and a number of other measures. If there is a special problem with farming, the system is geared to reflect that. The assessment is normally based on the previous year's income but if there are special problems the system can adjust to that. It would be a question of showing what the real situation is.
You and I know that there are special problems.
Can we make some progress in disposing of other questions. Let us come to deal with Question No. 9, please.
