I wish to share my time.
Private Members' Business. - Social Welfare Payments: Motion.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move:
That Dáil Éireann condemns the Government for its uncaring attitude towards social welfare recipients, especially the old, widows and the majority of the unemployed without children, notes with alarm that the general increase in social welfare this year at 2.5 per cent will not keep pace with inflation and is the lowest in 30 years; and calls on the Government to give a substantial increase in the amount already provided to bring it at least up to the levels normally provided.
Before this House on 8 February 1995, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Quinn, presented what he called a "radical budget". He said it would demonstrate a commitment to the social fabric of our community — one of the most valuable assets we have. According to the Minister, the principal objective was that it would strengthen social solidarity.I must seriously question the Minister's statement that with his published budget he was aiming to strengthen social solidarity.
My first reaction to the budget is one of total dismay. At a time of major opportunity to provide real increases in the standard of living among those who are most deprived in our society, it is beyond belief that this rainbow Government should treat their just and urgent needs with cruel indifference. Can anyone seriously defend a paltry increase of £1.50 per week for someone on a basic income of £61 per week? Yet this is the extent of the consideration given by the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa and his Cabinet colleagues to the recipients of old age non-contributory pensions, blind pensions and the base unemployment benefit and assistance recipients.
How can the Minister, Deputy De Rossa, representing the supposed "left" element, the Democratic Left, sit comfortably since budget day given his lowly and abysmal consideration of those in society who crucially depend upon social welfare? One might have expected that the presence of the Minister, Deputy De Rossa in the Department of Social Welfare would have ensured a real improvement in living standards for poorer families since he and his party have always highlighted the needs of the under-privileged in their public comments and policies. It is abundantly clear to all that he and his party failed to deliver on the plethora of promises made by him and his colleagues from the safety of the Opposition benches.
There will be social welfare increases of 2.5 per cent. What about such fundamentals as the cost of living? We all, rich and poor, live in a world where inflation exists. Only today the indication is that rising house prices are nudging inflation up beyond levels forecast by the Government. With the ESRI last week predicting inflation levels of 2.8 per cent for 1995, the social welfare increases of 2.5 per cent will not even cover the rate of inflation and can only be interpreted as a studied insult to the poorest members of our society. There is absolutely no excuse for this callous behaviour, particularly with the current vibrant and healthy condition of the national finances and economy — a healthy condition re-emphasised in last week's ESRI forecasts and a healthy condition in no small measure due to the sound planning and economics of the previous Government. It is bitterly disappointing to see the miserly 2.5 per cent increase for a wide range of social welfare recipients. This single statistic only too clearly illustrates the powerless and ineffective role of the Minister, Deputy De Rossa, and his non-voting party colleague at the Cabinet table. What in the world has happened to the Minister Deputy De Rossa and the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte and their espousal of the cause of the under-privileged?I must put the question again, can there be any remaining credence in the spurious claim that we now have a Government of consensus?
When we examine what the Minister for Social Welfare is offering to recipients of specific so-called "benefits" we witness extreme miserly actions. First, there is a proposal to increase the survivors pension for widows and widowers from £64.50 by just £1.60. Deserted wives under 80 years are provided with the same remuneration. The personal rate of disability benefit has been increased by just £1.50 per week. Again, the same statistics apply to the carer's allowance and the personal rate of pre-retirement and infectious diseases maintenance allowances. An absolutely miserable increase of £1 is provided for the orphan's non-contributory pension and, as we witnessed on budget day, the laughably sad case of the living alone allowance which will increase by 10 pence per week from £4.80 to £4.90 — the price of a box of matches.
While the increase in child benefit is very welcome, there were no increases in child dependant allowances and thus we have the cruellest rub of all. For example, a long term unemployed man with three dependent children will receive £139.60 per week compared to £137.20 before the budget a rise of only 1.75 per cent. This is a case of absolute cruelty.
Bodies such as the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed and the Conference of Religious of Ireland have echoed our deep regret over the 1995 budget. They called it a budget of half measures and huge disappointments.It was a budget in which the real issues associated with poverty and unemployment were not addressed, a budget in which we saw a decline in real terms in social welfare payments. Yet again it is those who can least afford it who end up bearing the brunt of the so-called benefits of this budget. Those thousands on the edge of survival, who depend on social welfare, yet again carry the can and, in this case, the dregs in the can.
This year more than ever the Government, because of the prudent work of the previous Government, should have and could have made a difference to those depending on social welfare. This budget could have made a difference. There has been absolutely no attempt by the Government to make any sort of advancement towards an adequate level of social welfare as set down by the Commission on Social Welfare in 1986.
At the outset of his Budget Statement the Minister for Finance, Deputy Quinn, said that the 1995 budget would be the first of his three budgets prior to the next general election. If the Minister's social welfare policy continues in this vein, those particularly dependent on social welfare will be delighted if they never see the next two budgets.
As I have already said and as Deputy Bell said earlier, we want to give credit where credit is due and we welcome the child benefit increases. Similarly, we welcome the proposals in relation to back to school payments, free cross-Border journeys for all pensioners North and South of the Border — first suggested by the Fianna Fáil Women's Association — increased grants to various community and voluntary services and the further extension of the free colour TV licence to all social welfare pensioners currently receiving an electricity allowance. The Minister has followed the lead of the Fianna Fáil led Government in these measures. However, these represent a miserly set of welcome benefits in an altogether derisory budget for those dependent on social welfare. For those thousands on the lowest rates of social welfare, the 1995 budget saw the abandonment of the strategy of giving above inflation increases to those on the lower rates of social welfare payments. The 1995 budget has given its lowest increases in the area of social welfare for over 30 years.
As I said, the ESRI reported that the economy had grown by a massive 6.8 per cent last year. That is great news, but what about those who will never have an opportunity to share in this massive growth? According to the ESRI the recent budget could be regarded as a missed opportunity. Given the scale of economic growth, that the ESRI forecasts for 1995 suggest that the economy will continue to grow steadily, competitiveness will be maintained with interest rates and inflation remaining at relatively low levels and both business and consumer confidence remaining strong, why was more funding not provided on 8 February to help those dependent on social welfare?
By laying this motion before the House this evening we in Fianna Fáil call on the Government to give a substantial increase in the general level of social welfare already provided to at least bring it up to the levels normally provided.
Deputy Woods remarked to the House on 14 February 1995 that the Taoiseach said his rainbow coalition Government was giving historically low increases to enhance the incentive to work among people on social welfare. Both the Labour and Democratic Left parties supported this approach but, as Deputy Woods pertinently asked, since when did the old age pensioner, the widow, the invalid or the homeless person need an incentive to go out to work? Those people cannot work, but why are they being penalised? This attitude is consistent at least with the old Fine Gael Ernest Blythe way of doing things. What those people need is an adequate level of support payments, and the support of all the community if they are to survive in meagre comfort. They are entitled to that support but did not get it from the rainbow coalition Government.
Echoing our views, Vincent Browne recently commented that the poorer sections of society have little to rejoice about in this budget. He stated that the unemployed are now to be the sole members of society not to benefit from the projected growth. While those in employment will gain from the 2.5 per cent increase in earnings due under the Programme for Competitiveness and Work, the unemployed will gain nothing from that. As Vincent Browne succinctly, put it, this is the agenda to which this left-dominated Government is committed.
What will the Government do? That the budget largely fails to cater for those most vulnerable in our society does not and cannot mean that their cause will not be comprehensively addressed for at least another 12 months. An increasing focus must be placed on ensuring the necessary effective and caring policies are rapidly developed for implementation at the earliest possible date. In this regard a number of issues must be taken into account. For example, we may not be fully aware of the degree of social welfare dependency in our society with in excess of 40 per cent of the community in receipt of such payments. That means a very high proportion of Government decisions have either direct or indirect relevance for the social welfare sector.
Another critical point is that when attempting to address the issue of poverty effective Government action is all important and the only thing that counts. Aspirations and sympathy are of absolutely no value. I stress the failure of this budget to attack the roots of marked social inequality in the country, since nothing less than the future social cohesion of our society is at stake.
Whatever happened to the unprecedented opportunity inherited by the rainbow as a legacy from the outgoing Fianna Fáil-Labour Government? I will finish by quoting the Conference of Religious of Ireland. It states:
The 1995 budget provided Government with Ireland's best opportunity in more than thirty years to tackle the poverty, unemployment and exclusion which affects a substantial portion of the country's population. The Government missed this opportunity.Instead of giving priority to tackling poverty, unemployment and exclusion it has once again produced a budget which benefits the better off more than it benefits the poor. Budget '95 has failed poor people and unemployed people. The poor have waited too long.
The 2.5 per cent increase in social welfare is the lowest in 30 years and we, in Fianna Fáil, are totally opposed to it and will vote against it.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Hughes.
I am sure that is satisfactory.
In his budget speech on 8 February the Minister for Finance, Deputy Quinn, listed as his first of five social welfare objectives, the protection of the spending power of social welfare recipients. It is precisely because of his failure to live up to those objectives that this motion is before us this evening. Many old age pensioners, particularly widows, are very disappointed with many of the provisions in the first budget of this Government. It simply cannot be held by this Government that it is protecting the spending power of the weakest group in our society when it has set an increase below its projected rate of inflation for the coming year.
During the past three weeks since the shocking announcement of the social welfare increase in the budget it has been pointed out by many Fianna Fáil speakers that it is the lowest increase introduced in 30 years. It must surely be taken as reflecting a specific move in Government policy. It is extraordinary that Deputies who sat on this side of the House and spoke with what seemed to be sincerity about various percentage increases in last year's budget and previous budgets should on entering Government act in a completely opposite manner. Over the past few years we have become used to the parties now forming the Government ritually condemning Fianna Fáil for a supposed failure to care for the poorest in society. One would have thought that when they entered Government they would do wonders. In spite of this, recent Fianna Fáil Governments have consistently increased social welfare payments by at the very least the rate of inflation and frequently a good deal more. Those increases were criticised time and time again.
It has been our consistent policy to seek to use part of additional resources available to Government through economic growth to improve social welfare provisions. Given the favourable economic forecasts for this year, it is extraordinary that this Government did not do likewise. Our theory is based on a clear understanding that social welfare cohesion — a term used in the speeches of members of this Government — requires a policy. Social cohesion is frequently talked about, but unless there is a policy and a clear commitment to it we will go nowhere.
The projections of the Department of Finance on inflation are at the lower end of the range, at 2.5 per cent to 3 per cent. It seems likely that in order to provide a fig-leaf to cover the embarrassment of the tiny social welfare increase to the socialist conscience of the Labour party and Democratic Left, the Government deliberately chose to err on the side of wild optimism with regard to inflation rates. This is no good to the people who have suffered as a result of the tiny increases given in this budget which leaves them less well off. While optimistic financial projections are part and parcel of Government, they are dangerous when used with such a small foundation as has been the case this year.
It will surely not have escaped the attention of Ministers that yesterday the Central Bank issued a warning that it is expected inflation will increase in the short term. That expectation is based on the continued buoyancy of the economy and the general demand for goods and services. Increased inflation means that pensioners and widows will get less value for their money. What is striking about that forecast is that nobody is surprised by it and even before the proposed social welfare increases are awarded to the people, it is clear that inflation will increase by at the very least 0.5 per cent to 1 per cent above social welfare increases. The inflation rate will have increased in advance of the payment of these pitiful social welfare increases.
The shortfall of 0.5 per cent to 1 per cent may not initially seem to be too great; however, it is significant to the old, widows, the single who are unemployed and the many categories relying solely on the pitiful 2.5 per cent increase to protect their living standards. It is extraordinary that members of Fianna Fáil should have to try to get this message across to members of the Government who when in Opposition lectured us for many years when we introduced proper increases to the people who count. It will become increasingly significant when the shortfall evident this year multiplies. It is not just the loss this year that counts for these people, it will be the loss that will ensue in the coming years because they were treated so badly in the 1995 budget.
A striking feature of the Government's decision to hold down social welfare levels is that it simply cannot be argued that there was no alternative, especially this year. This Government has rightly become notorious for taking a deliberate decision to put the concerns of hugely profitable financial institutions above those of the needy in this society. One would think the people on social welfare would come first, but this did not happen this year. It is to be hoped that the Government as a whole has not moved closer to the Fine Gael Party's position on social welfare. Throughout the country people are genuinely shocked. They thought, having listened to Democratic Left and the Labour Party over the years, that this would definitely be their year — a year of buoyancy in the economy — and that those on social welfare would benefit. This has been a major disappointment to those in receipt of social welfare. People are baffled by the attitude of the Government following their miserable 2.5 per cent increase in the budget.
The Leader of Fianna Fáil, Deputy Bertie Ahern, has already cited the critical comments of the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, on social welfare increases when they were announced by Fianna Fáil Ministers in budgets since 1987. Perhaps the Minister and others thought they would never be in Government. They criticised Fianna Fáil increases ranging from 3 per cent to 11 per cent. Today, they sit back and try to justify a miserable increase of 2.5 per cent which they put through. It is not good enough to sit on this side of the House and say one thing and then go into Government and do something completely different. It is very disappointing for those who have listened to the rhetoric of these people in Opposition to find that they have turned their coats since going into Government.
This motion points out that the miserly increase in social welfare proposed by the Government will have significant adverse effects on large numbers of the poorest people in our society. It is a genuine concern and annoyance. This increase is set at a level which does not enable people to maintain their standard of living at a time when the economy is buoyant.
This increase is a result of a deliberate decision of the new Administration to choose to use the best fiscal outlook in a generation to the benefit of financial institutions. This is what is so disappointing for the people on social welfare who had hoped for much more from the people who formed the Government because of all they had heard in the past and because of the buoyancy in the economy. Because they have been let down so badly and will have less money than in the past due to inflation and the 2.5 per cent increase, they are bitterly disappointed and will not forget it.
Frequently during Private Members' time the public gallery and the corridors of this House are full to capacity. Other than occasional visitors tonight the group we are trying to represent are not here. The Minister represents the most vulnerable, the poor, the voiceless, the hidden Ireland. That is why his responsibility is even more burdensome than that of many other Ministers who, on a daily basis, are visited by sophisticated lobby groups and organisations representing sectional interests. Some of those groups were successful in having their interests catered for in the budget, with generous tax reliefs and allowances being given. That suggests it was a reward for work budget. How thankful the banks must have been when at one stroke of the pen they benefited to the extent of over £40 million without any public demand or need for that measure.
As an Opposition party, we have a task to carry out. We will do so fearlessly and will represent the most defenceless in our community. That is the reason I join with my colleagues this evening in supporting the motion so well put by Deputies Joe Walsh and Mary Wallace. In the Budget Statement of 8 February 1995, Official Report, columns Nos. 1801 and 1802, the Minister for Finance stated:
The annual budget is about establishing priorities. It reflects choices and it affirms values. It is an indication of the type of society that we want for ourselves over the next 12 months and beyond... It will demonstrate a commitment to the social fabric of our community, one of the most valuable assets we have.
I welcome the emphasis on rewarding work but I question its intended purpose to strengthen social solidarity. All the economic commentators and others tell us that this country is enjoying sustained economic growth, falling unemployment and will continue to prosper for the foreseeable future. This scenario was not achieved overnight but by prudent management of the economy over the past number of years. The fruits of this labour are not being distributed in an equitable way when large financial institutions gain more from measures in this budget than the 14 per cent of the population aged over 65 years. Added to that 14 per cent are the single unemployed and childless unemployed couples. The 2.5 per cent increase is best described as miserly and uncaring.
The spin doctors try to equate the level of increase to the rate of inflation but I question the method of calculating the inflation rate. An old aged pensioner living in a rural area invariably has to depend on a private hackney service once or twice a week to go to purchase food from shops in his or her local town or village. How is the rate of inflation calculated? Is it based on a particular group of citizens. Clearly, a person in a large town has many more advantages than a person in a sparsely populated rural area where the cost of living is considerably higher. Our prediction on budget day that the rate of inflation would not be 2.5 per cent is now borne out by the ESRI who say it will be 2.7 per cent or 2.8 per cent. Today's evening newspapers carry headlines predicting that bank interest rates will increase in the next few weeks. The rate of inflation this year will be closer to 3 per cent. Social welfare recipients, as a result of this budget, will suffer a real loss. As the Minister for Finance said, the budget reflects choices and affirms values. On the social welfare side, Fianna Fáil rejects the choices made and does not subscribe to the values as indicated in the social solidarity section of the Budget Statement.
Last year the Government provided £4 million for housing aid for the elderly.This ensured that the severe backlog would be tackled. It is a worthwhile scheme much appreciated by those who would not be eligible under the disabled person's scheme operated by local authorities.A sum of £4 million was provided in 1994 but this year it was reduced by 100 per cent. The £4 million in 1994 was made up of the usual £2 million allocation topped up with £2 million from the proceeds of the tax amnesty. It would not have been asking much for the same provision this year.
This year's provision represents a 100 per cent reduction for a scheme primarily directed towards the elderly to carry out necessary repairs where they are deemed by the health board not to be able to afford it themselves. Accordingly, we will be faced with an increasing backlog of cases and the elderly will have to wait for substantial periods for the carrying out of necessary housing repairs because the health boards who administer the scheme will not be in a position to accede to the many requests. They can only accede to the most urgent requests. It is easy to say that last year was an exception, that £2 million of the £4 million was tax amnesty money — I accept that that position cannot be replicated this year — but efforts should be made to ensure that the scheme is operated at last year's level. Last year substantial work was carried out under the FÁS element of the scheme. It is those people without a voice, the silent Ireland, who will suffer if action is not taken in this area.
The phasing out of the bank levy over three years and the reduction in the rate of corporation profits tax to 38 per cent seems perverse when compared to the social welfare increases. The Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, stated that the removal of the bank levy was Exchequer neutral. However, I do not accept that assertion, an effort to fool the public, and the true cost will be £22 million. The removal of this levy will improve the cashflow of the banks and leave them with money in their hands for a much longer period. If the Government is in the business of removing levies and does not think it can give anything more than the 2.5 per cent increase given in the budget, it should consider making a gesture in the Finance Bill to the 14 per cent of people over 65 years and remove the 2 per cent levy paid by them in the form of a hidden tax on house insurance, car insurance etc. I tabled a parliamentary question to the Minister for Finance asking the total income generated by this levy across all sectors. The cost of removing this levy for people over 65 years of age who take out house and car insurance would be very little and would indicate that this is a caring Government.
The justice office of the Conference of Religious in Ireland has pointed out that following the budget a single unemployed person will be £1.50 a week or 21.5 pence a day better off, a single employed person earning £13,000 will be £6.60 a week better off, a person on unemployment assistance with an adult dependant will get an increase of £2.40 per week or less than 13p per day and employed people will get an increase of 2.5 per cent in earnings due under the Programme for Competitiveness and Work, under which the unemployed will not gain anything. To put this into perspective, the £40 million given to the banks through the removal of the levy and the reduction in the corporation profits tax could have financed a substantial additional increase in social welfare allowances. The choices made, the values affirmed and the priorities established by the Government do not take into account the old, the widowed and the majority of the unemployed without children. Those dependent on social welfare will be left further behind as the sophisticated lobby groups make further progress in their demands.
As is normal, the Minister was invited to speak on a radio programme on the Thursday after the Budget Statement. I listened very intently to that programme in my car while driving from Dublin to the west. I cannot recall the name of the programme but I remember that all the people who phoned in, including the first person who came from an offshore island, gave the Minister a very hard time.
Fianna Fáil had its cumanns well organised that day.
The first caller came from either Inishturk or one of the Aran Islands, neither of which is in my constituency.I suspect that some of the callers came from the Minister's constituency as they seemed to know him quite well. Despite his best efforts, excellent radio techniques——
Thank you very much.
——and experience of public life, he could not defend the indefensible.Even though he interrupted them——
He is good at that.
——they demanded that they be given the right to make their point. They told him in no uncertain terms how bitterly disappointed they were in him. Given the policies and points of view which members of Democratic Left so skillfully articulated in Opposition, they thought they would have a voice in Government which would at least ensure that they were looked after.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): They did not have a friend in the previous Government.
Having regard to the priorities established by the Government, it is clear that these people do not have a friend in Government. If one looks at Fianna Fáil's record in Government one will see that the increase last year was 3 per cent——
I have all the figures with me.
——while the previous year it was 4 per cent, and 5 per cent the year before that.
The Deputy should go back another year.
One can always look back, and I wonder how many people are looking forward. If the Government stays in office it will have had 120 weeks to set its priorities, affirm its values and indicates its choices.
We will have another five years after that.
I doubt it.
A considerable number of people are disappointed with the budget. I extend to the Minister an open invitation to visit rural Ireland and talk to the people. They will tell him whether it was a good budget and whether his negotiations with his Cabinet colleagues were successful on this occasion. I will give the Minister the benefit of the doubt as this is his first time to sit at the Cabinet table.
The Deputy is very kind.
If he remains in office for another year, hopefully I will not be in the same position this time next year supporting a similar motion. I wish him the best in ensuring that the terrible mistake made in this budget will not be repeated. The Government has shown a total lack of concern for those people who have made this country what it is today by dividing the fruits of their labour among the sophisticated lobby groups such as the banks and middle classes who successfully ensured that the residential property tax was rolled back. Hopefully those voiceless people whom we represent and who cannot afford to come to Dublin to lobby the Minister will be given a better hearing next year. I support this motion.
I move amendment No. 1:
To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:
"Dáil Éireann endorses the radical approach taken by the Government in the 1995 budget in
— introducing wide ranging reforms in the tax and social welfare systems to stimulate employment and thereby make significant inroads into our unacceptable levels of unemployment;
— providing the largest ever shift of resources to the social welfare area, amounting to £212 million in a full year, for all those who need assistance, from youth to old age, at work or in education;
— targeting poverty directly by providing for an unprecedented increase of £7 per month in child benefit, at a cost of over £100 million in a full year;
— allocating £60 million as a first step, to pay the legally determined entitlements of married women to equality payment
and commends the Government, in particular, for bringing forward the general inflation-linked increase in the basic rates of social welfare payments by six weeks from the end of July as in previous years to early June and mid June."
I ask the Fianna Fáil Deputies who have referred to "miserly increases and the worst increases for 30 years" to look at their party's record in 1987——
Those are the points the Minister made when he was on this side of the House.
——when the increases given in social welfare amounted to £33 million. This year the increases amount to £90 million. There are other statistics I could give. In 1989 when Fianna Fáil went into Government with the Progressive Democrats they gave a princely increase of 3 per cent in general rates, but inflation that year was 4 per cent.
What about the 11 per cent for the long term unemployed?
It is all there in black and white. I ask Fianna Fáil spokespersons to at least check their sources before coming in here to mislead the House and the public.
So should the Government.
The motion in the name of Deputies Joe Walsh and Mary Wallace is a measure of the political dishonesty and bankruptcy of Fianna Fáil. If it wants to create difficulties for the Government or embarrass Democratic Left it will have to do a lot better than this.
This Government brought in, with less than six weeks to prepare it, an innovative and reforming budget which struck the right balance between social and economic objectives. I am particularly pleased with the social welfare provisions which have delivered an additional £90 million for social welfare and related improvements in 1995 and some £212 million in a full year. More importantly, the range of improvements and increases which we are implementing have been achieved without any of the social welfare cutbacks which were the hallmarks of virtually every budget when Fianna Fáil held office.
The note of dishonesty was struck by Fianna Fáil long before budget day. When the Estimates were published the Fianna Fáil spokesperson on Finance, Deputy McCreevy of the famous "Dirty Dozen" cuts in social welfare, attacked them on the basis that no provision was made for the payment of the social welfare Christmas bonus. As a former Minister, Deputy McCreevy knew quite well that provision has never been included in the Estimates for the Christmas bonus and that the money is always provided during the year, as it will be this year. This did not deter Deputy McCreevy who was quite prepared to bend the truth and frighten people on social welfare simply to score a cheap political point.
Fianna Fáil is equally dishonest in its criticism of the 2.5 per cent increase in the general rates. This comes from the party which took eight years to move social welfare payments to the priority rates recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare and give an increase of less than the inflation rate in 1989.
The Fianna Fáil Leader, Deputy Ahern, is on record as saying that he believed the increase should have been 3 per cent, but what he failed to say is that the difference between the increase given and the increase Fianna Fáil says should have been given is a princely one half penny in the pound.
I have already said that the 1995 budget represents a fundamentally new — long overdue — approach. I do not expect Fianna Fáil to support this approach because it could have introduced it but refused to do so. This fresh approach is not simply because this is the first budget in which Democratic Left has had an input or because it has been introduced by a multi-party Coalition, but it reflects a balance of priorities of each of the parties in Government.
There are three characteristics of this year's budget which are essential to achieving that balance of priorities among the Coalition parties. It is a balanced budget, a reforming budget and a budget which provides a sound base from which we can move forward to achieve the social and economic objectives enshrined in the Government's programme for renewal. Again, I do not expect Fianna Fáil to support those objectives; they are the objectives of this Government, not of Fianna Fáil or the previous Government.
It is balanced both financially and politically. Most of all, it strikes the right balance in terms of social and economic objectives, between social welfare increases and reforms aimed at alleviating those at greatest risk of poverty and tax and PRSI reforms aimed at making inroads into our unacceptable levels of unemployment.
There is a fundamental new approach and new thinking in this budget. The days of "what did we do last year" are at an end. Fresh thinking and new approaches are essential if we are to address the major problems facing us.
It was that fresh approach which convinced me that a thin spread of available resources across all social welfare recipients was not the way to go, it would not solve any problems and I will defend against all comers my decision to make a direct assault on child poverty by allocating more than £100 million — more than half the extra resources available to me — to a significant increase in child benefit.
Fianna Fáil should note that the unemployed of this country, including smallholders, are caring for 233,000 children, lone parents are caring for 60,000 children, widows and widowers are caring for 19,000 children, old age pensioners are caring for 6,000 children and recipients of family income supplement are caring for 32,000 children, all of whom received increases beyond the wildest dreams of what Fianna Fáil thought could be achieved in the budget.
The fundamental tax and PRSI reforms, for the first time in a number of years, will primarily benefit low paid workers. In recent years low paid workers have been all but ignored in favour of applying tax concessions to relatively high earners.
That is factually incorrect.
Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats are at one in giving tax breaks to the most wealthy and claiming that the benefits would trickle down to the poor. We are introducing reform from the bottom up.
The Minister has taken over.
This budget redresses the bias that Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats introduced in terms of what they called radical tax reform.
We started it.
High earners will, of course, also gain from the positive knock-on effects of the tax and PRSI changes which will be implemented from the bottom up.
The reductions in employers' PRSI and corporation tax address the concerns of the business sector who have long maintained that the burden of taxation acts as a disincentive to employment.The budget tackles these issues and I look forward to the delivery of the jobs which that sector has promised would flow from such reforms.
Tax reform is, however, only one part of the overall strategy to be undertaken in the lifetime of this Government. The social welfare system has a fundamental part to play in the shift of income and resources in our society. The social welfare measures taken in this budget represent a major and radical step towards stimulating enterprise and job creation and towards rewarding work and ensuring social solidarity between those who are better off and those who are less so.
This budget recognises that the social welfare system must be proactive in facilitating employment and experiments with employment so that citizens can react positively to the new forms of work emerging. The labour market has undergone significant shifts in terms of increased flexibility and volatility with many changes in both the hours people work and the type of work that is needed. These changes must be paralleled by changes in how we deliver social welfare. We must aim to ensure greater flexibility in income support and social services so that no man or woman in our society is reluctant or afraid to take up any form of work — however atypical or unorthodox — because of fear of ending up worse off for their efforts.
In the 1995 budget, I adopted a twofold approach in addressing these issues, firstly, to increase social welfare payments in a focused way and, secondly, to tackle the traps in our system which prevent people from taking up work and other opportunities.
The resources available to me to undertake these changes are very significant.The cost of the social welfare improvements announced on budget day will amount to £212 million in a full year. This is the largest single allocation of resources on an annual basis to the social welfare area since the foundation of the State. That is an incontrovertible fact. It is, for example, 35 per cent higher than was allocated in 1994. What is of real significance, however — and what distinguishes this from all previous budgets — is the way we seek to tackle the fundamental problem of child poverty.
My decision to commit more than half of these resources to providing a significant increase in child benefit indicates my firm and unwavering commitment to those who are at greatest risk of poverty in our society — children. The £7 per child per month across the board increase in child benefit represents a very significant increase in the State's contribution to rearing children. For some odd and peculiar reason Fianna Fáil seem to think that this increase is miserly. It boggles the mind. Child benefit is widely recognised as the most effective means of targeting poverty because those at most risk tend to be large families. In the vast majority of cases the payment is made to women and in many cases is the woman's only independent source of income. Research on Income Distribution within Irish Households, published recently by the Combat Poverty Agency, showed that women tended to spend more of their income on children and on household expenses than did men, so this payment is particularly well directed. Specifically in relation to child benefit, the survey found that 90 per cent of the payment was spent either directly on the children, or on general housekeeping expenses.
The substantial increase in child benefit also serves to address the second fundamental objective of this year's improvements in social welfare — that of facilitating employment. Child-related additions to existing social welfare payments have long been recognised as contributing to the financial obstacles to taking up employment. Directing income support for children through child benefit will relieve one of the worst poverty and unemployment traps in the existing system, arising from the loss of child support when a person takes up employment. Child benefit is not lost when a person takes up employment and it is not taxed, while only 7 per cent of child benefit goes to people with an income in excess of £25,000.
The child benefit improvement is just the first step in meeting this Government's commitment to creating a form of basic income for children. Having established a good basic child benefit payment, the basis is laid for the development of the child benefit supplement.This will be payable in addition to child benefit to all families whose income is below a certain level irrespective of whether that income is derived from social welfare or employment or a combination of the two. The new supplement will incorporate both the child dependant allowances which are paid to people on social welfare and the family income supplement which is payable to people on low income from employment.
To listen to Fianna Fáil one would think that social welfare had been cut. Of course, they were silent in this House when Deputy McCreevy, as Minister for Social Welfare, severely cut social welfare payments and entitlements. People without children also benefit from the social welfare budget improvements. The 2.5 per cent increase in weekly personal and adult dependant payments guarantees that everyone getting a social welfare payment will keep pace with the predicted rate of inflation this year. In this way, their real income position is being maintained while many in this category will also benefit from other improvements.
This increase is also in line with the 2-2.5 per cent increase which most employed workers will receive this year under the Programme for Competitiveness and Work negotiated by ICTU. To separate out the 2.5 per cent increase from other improvements gives an unbalanced and distorted picture of the impact of the general rate increase. Let us look at the impact of the budget improvements as a whole in a number of typical examples. A couple with four children in receipt of long term unemployment assistance will receive a new weekly payment of £180.03, including the child benefit increase. This amounts to a weekly increase of £8.86 or 5.2 per cent, i.e. more than double the general increase of 2.5 per cent. If one of their children is 21 years of age and still in full-time education, the family could benefit from a further £13.20 a week by way of the continuation of the child dependant allowance up to age 22. Similarly, if one of the children is 18 years of age, child benefit of either £27 or £32 a month will be payable for them from September until they reach 19 years of age.
A couple with three children on either disability benefit or unemployment benefit will get an additional £7.25 a week, i.e. an increase of 4.8 per cent, bringing their weekly payment to £159.45 when account is taken of the child benefit increase. As set out in the example, the family could also benefit from the continuation of child dependent allowances and additional child benefit depending on the ages of their children.
A social welfare pensioner getting a contributory old age or retirement pension with a spouse under 66 years of age and additional income of £8.00 a week will get an increase of £9.70 a week or 8.3 per cent bringing their new weekly payment to £125.90. This increase includes the fuel allowance of £5.00 a week payable where additional income in these circumstances does not exceed £10.00 a week. They will also get the benefit of a free colour television licence.
An important point which appears to be missed by virtually all commentators, including Fianna Fáil Members of this House, is that bringing forward by six weeks the date on which the increases are paid, in fact, will give social welfare recipients more money in 1995 than they would have received if 3 per cent had been paid in late July. Therefore, while the debate has focused on 2.5 per cent versus 3 per cent, the people on the street will have more money in their pockets in 1995 with a 2.5 per cent increase paid from early or mid-June 1995 than a 3 per cent increase delayed until the end of July.
Next year, I hope to give the benefit of the increases at an even earlier stage in the year so that social welfare recipients will be on a par with taxpayers as far as annual budget changes are concerned.If Fianna Fáil ever get back into power I am quite certain they will push it back again to the end of July, or even later, because that is what they have done in every budget. It was nearly the end of the summer before people got their budgetary increases. I am now bringing them back.
And inflation has passed it out.
Fianna Fáil has totally misjudged the public reaction to the budget and to the social welfare provisions and what is more totally misread the reaction of its own supporters. The only reliable information so far on public reaction to the budget was contained in The Irish Times/MRBI poll published on 18 February, 10 days after the budget. This poll revealed a far more favourable reaction to this budget than those produced by Deputy Ahern in 1993 and 1994. Of those polled 85 per cent believed that their standard of living would rise or remain the same, as against just 13 per cent who feared that their standard of living would decline.
The increase in child benefit — the cornerstone of the social welfare provisions — was identified as by far the most positive element in the budget, being listed by 25 per cent of those polled as the most beneficial element. Twice as many people regarded the general increase in social welfare as a beneficial element as against those who believed that the increases were not enough.
It is clear also from the poll that Fianna Fáil voters are taking no notice of the nonsense they have been hearing from their party spokespersons and are making up their own minds on the budget. Of Fianna Fáil voters 87 per cent believed that their standard of living would rise or remain the same — 2 per cent higher than among all voters. Again the increase in child benefit was identified by Fianna Fáil voters as the most positive element in the budget and the attitude to the social welfare increases among Fianna Fáil voters broadly matched those of all voters. It is very clear that this motion does not represent the views of Fianna Fáil voters on the budget in general or on the social welfare provisions in particular.
The Minister should read The Irish Times.
The other social and economic objectives this Government wants to achieve in its period in office are also reflected in other improvements in the social welfare area announced as part of the budget. They are all important developments and warrant full discussion in their own right.
On the issue of children, I have given recognition to the fact that children are remaining in full-time education for longer. I have extended the age at which child benefit is paid to include 18 year-olds, including those attending FÁS courses for which no weekly course allowance is payable. Under present arrangements child benefit ceases to be payable once a child turns 18 irrespective of whether or not full-time education is being pursued. This represents between £324 and £384 per annum for each child for whom child benefit continues to be paid.
Having children in full-time education is particularly expensive for families dependent on social welfare and to help alleviate this I have extended the age at which child dependant allowances are payable with long term social welfare payments to include 21 years olds in full time education. Will the Deputies oppose this as well?
In terms of families with older children who are not in education but who live at home, the minimum weekly payment for those who qualify for unemployment assistance will increase from £10 to £25, a whopping 150 per cent increase. I have not heard the Deputies complain about this. This measure is in response to the concern expressed generally about young people being forced to leave home to qualify for an unemployment payment. In addition, the assessment of the benefit of board and lodgings while at home in future will apply only to those living at home with their parents. This means that men and women living with relatives, brothers and sisters, will not be obliged to produce evidence of their relatives income but will be assessed in their own right.
The carer's allowance contributes to caring for the incapacitated in our society. I will introduce significant improvements to the scheme aimed at increasing its availability. The relaxation of the means test applied to the individual dedicated to caring will mean that the spouse of the carer can have income of up to £150 a week from any source and the carer can still qualify for a payment.
The new arrangements to be introduced for deserted wives and lone parents will be a significant step forward in providing income support for people raising children on their own. The new scheme will be non-discriminatory, will abolish the need to prove desertion, will cover both men and women and will be non-judgmental. Payment will not depend on the reasons for their sole parenthood but simply on the fact of their sole parenthood and on their earnings and the number of children being cared for. No one will lose out as a result of the change.
We should not encourage it.
Only society.
What did Deputy Noel Ahern say? Would he please speak up?
(Interruptions.)
Is the Deputy opposed to abolishing the concept of desertion and in favour of insisting that women must go through the humiliating process of having to prove they were deserted by their spouses?
I am against encouraging it.
Members already know my views on the issue of married women's social welfare equality payments.The Deputies' colleague, the former Minister for Social Welfare, does. This issue stems from 1984 when the equal treatment directive 79/7 should have been implemented. Successive Governments had six years to implement that directive properly but failed to do so. This failure has resulted in a long series of court proceedings, which I was one of the few Members of the Dáil to predict, almost a decade ago. The official text of the judgment of the High Court in what amounted to two test cases on this issue was made available on 10 February last. That decision of the High Court is being examined by my Department in consultation with the office of the Attorney General.
The programme for A Government of Renewal outlines this Government's commitment——
Is the Minister backtracking?
Does the Deputy want to hear it?
The Minister is not addressing the motion.
This is sore for the Deputies because they insisted on dragging women through the courts instead of paying them what they were entitled to.
It will be sore for the taxpayer.
Would the Minister have ignored legal advice?
The programme for A Government of Renewal outlines the Government's commitment to pay the legally determined entitlements of married women to social welfare equality payments.
Pensioners and widows have been ignored.
In keeping with this commitment I will submit proposals for consideration by the Government to deal with the implications of the court's decision. In the meantime the Government has already provided £60 million as a first step in meeting its obligations. Even when we tot up the figures of £212 million, £60 million and £5 million——
How much will pensioners and widows receive?
——the Deputies opposite still tell us that this is the most miserly social welfare budget in 30 years. They know that is nonsense and ought to be ashamed of themselves.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister is continuing to dig a hole for himself.
The Minister is inviting interruptions.
Where is the increase for widows and pensioners?
We are also providing over £5 million extra this year for improvements in various employment support services as well as community and voluntary services. In addition, extra funding is being provided to the Combat Poverty Agency while my Department is to take over responsibility for the National Social Service Board. A special allocation is being provided for this board to develop an integrated computerised information system.
As usual on this and other issues, Fianna Fáil is talking out of both sides of its mouth. On the one hand Deputy Walsh is criticising the Government for not spending enough while on the other Deputy McCreevy has been telling Fianna Fáil's corporate backers that the Government has spent too much and is being reckless with the national finances.
He almost shut down the Department of Social Welfare.
It has been given to the banks.
I reject the hypocrisy of Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats who have not featured here tonight. The newly discovered interest of the Progressive Democrats in those on social welfare will fool no one, least of all the poor. In addition, few people attach any credence to the criticism from Fianna Fáil about the alleged inadequacies of the social welfare increases given its own miserable record in office——
That is what the Minister said when he was on this side of the House.
——and particularly the damage inflicted on the social welfare system by Deputy McCreevy during his short term of office. He was only nine months in office and did more damage to the social welfare system than anyone else in the past 30 years. Fianna Fáil could have provided for an increase of one third in child benefit but failed to do so.
We looked after pensioners and widows.
It could have given married women their rights under the equal treatment directive but failed to do so. It could have begun the process of harmonising the tax and social welfare systems but failed to do so. It could have tried to eliminate the poverty traps in which people on social welfare find themseves but failed to do so. The Government has made a good start and will continue the process.
It has provided for an increase of only 2.5 per cent.
Nothing for the old.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Michael Ahern and Noel Ahern.
That is acceptable.
I compliment the members of the Labour Party who are in a confident mood and so much at ease with the Minister for Social Welfare, a man to whom they would not speak and would not contemplate going into Government with two and a half years ago.
That is typical of Fianna Fáil.
Members of Fianna Fáil do not speak to each other.
The Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, broke the budget record for the Socialist Left with a contented smile that comes with a Ministerial car. He had the opportunity to ensure respectability for his party——
My natural inclination is to smile.
——and his smile signalled the end of an era of bickering, fighting for the less well off and the marginalised in our society. At last he could leave behind him the failed doctrine of socialism and Marxism, the hallmarks of The Workers' Party and which both he, his colleagues were trying to ditch. He had found a comfortable home for his colleagues in Government.
Did Marty Whelan write this script?
With the promise of a post of chairperson or convenor for the two remaining Deputies, on one of the four new committees to be set up, everyone was happy in the Democratic Left. They had all been looked after.
We will have to have a different director of elections on the next occasion.
No one was more at peace with himself and the authorities than the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte.Was it not enlightening to see him sitting happily wedged between the constrasting colours of the rainbow which had delivered him the three-quarters full crock of gold. It was easy to forget or to be immune to the harsh realities from which they had come.
I think we have heard this before.
Democratic Left dictated to the electorate from whom it had drawn support and who eventually ensured it reached the lofty heights.
This sounds like an editorial in The Irish Socialist.
Let us hear the Deputy without interruption.
It is very hard to listen to it.
Am I hurting the Deputy?
It sounds like bad poetry.
It was only natural that the public would have great expectations of the present Minister for Social Welfare. They saw him as their friend, the Minister from whom they hoped for succour——
They still do.
——but it was not to be. The crock of gold they had anticipated was not delivered. Instead, like the banana, Democratic Left went in green, turned yellow and came out shop soiled.
I will give credit to the Minister for Social Welfare for harbouring the aspiration to deliver to the less well off in our society but I really mean it when I say Democratic Left went into Government "green". It had no experience and did not realise what it was facing. It certainly had not bargained for Ruairí or Dick. "Not an inch" was the Labour maxim. Labour had Democratic Left where it wanted it. It remembered the jibes and taunts from Democrat Left when it was in Opposition.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Remember the Attorney General? The Deputy's party thought it had him where it wanted him.
Labour thought it had Democratic Left sucked in because it had nowhere to go. What could Democratic Left expect from a Labour Tánaiste and a Labour Minister for Finance?
That is Fianna Fáil thinking.
The Deputy, without interruption.
Now Labour had an opportunity to teach Democratic Left some home truths and be assured that while Deputy Spring was Tánaiste and Deputy De Rossa was Minister for Social Welfare, every effort would be made to weaken the strength of Democratic Left within the Left constituency. Faced with such an onslaught, Democratic Left wilted.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): The Cork by-election was not bad for Democratic Left.
Is it any wonder that Deputy De Rossa, as Minister for Social Welfare, agreed to an abysmal 2.5 per cent increase for social welfare recipients.
A 6 per cent average.
It is extraordinary that he would do that to widows and senior citizens. Is it any wonder, therefore, that Vincent Browne headed one of his newspaper articles "The Poor and the Oppressed Take a Real Battering in this Budget". With regard to the bank levy, for instance, Democratic Left was party to writing off £36 million but Minister Rabbitte said that that really was not any great loss to the Exchequer because only £14 million was written off and that the cost to the Exchequer was only £22 million. Those are the comments of a man who expressed his dissatisfaction with the role of the banks over a protracted period. Minister Rabbitte forgot to mention that a reduction in corporation tax from 40 per cent to 38 per cent would mean a saving of £2 million in every £100 million which would effectively give approximately £7 million overall back to the banks. He forgot to mention also that if the bank levy remained as it was, there was an opportunity for this Minister for Social Welfare, who I believe feels deeply for the less well off and oppressed, to give an increase of 5 per cent——
It is 5 per cent now. The Deputy is trying to trump his Leader who said 3 per cent. Deputy Ahern referred only to 3 per cent.
——across the board and not to deprive widows and our senior citizens who have played a major role in our society.
The Deputy wants to given them an extra 60p per week, is that it?
Interest rates are rising, inflation is likely to be 3 per cent and yet standard bearers of the poor saw fit to give an increase of only 2.5 per cent.
The Deputy is trying to talk up the interest rates.
That is dishonest and ill-befits Democratic Left——
It is dishonest to have this rubbish coming out of the mouth of a Fianna Fáil TD.
——who, for years, have espoused in this House the under-privileged in our society. The Minister has enthused about the £7 per child increase.
Is the Deputy opposing it?
It would not pay the Socialist salmon and wine bill for one year as it amounts to approximately £1,400.
Is the Deputy saying he would do better?
Let us consider the facts. A single unemployed person will be £1.50 better off; a person on a living alone allowance will get an extra 10p per week; a married couple will get an extra £2.40 per week but a single employed person earning £13,000 per year will get an additional £6 per week. A married couple earning £24,000 per year will get an extra £8.87 per week. Is this the real humiliation of Democratic Left?
The Minister is quite right to question the amount of money being paid in education fees. I know that in his heart he would not wish to abolish fees for a person earning £30,000, £50,000 or £200,000 per year. Yet, as a Socialist Minister, he has agreed that a person earning £200,000 per year can send children to college on reduced fees but he has given nothing to people on PLC courses who come from the less well off sectors of society. He has not done anything to alleviate their position.
That is not true.
The Taoiseach said that Democratic Left will look after the constituency of the impoverished. I say to the Minister in all sincerity that he has let those people down badly.
The Minister has miscalculated figures from recent polls. The Minister's party is at 2 per cent in the most recent poll; Fianna Fáil is at 52 per cent.
A stable 2 per cent.
Has the budget been accepted by his electorate, the less well off in our society?
The Cork by-election was the last real poll.
That was before the budget.
I am delighted to see the Minister here in the House. I miss him in the constituency these days.
The Deputy obviously was not there when I was.
I do not know whether the Minister has brought about any changes in his Department since taking up office but we cannot even get a reply from him now with his name on it. One can get the name of any public servant on replies but not the Minister's name.
I refuse to follow the nonsense of pretending that I sign every letter that goes out from the Department of Social Welfare.
I would be happy to have a stamp with the Minister's name on it but I notice that replies to Fianna Fáil Members do not have the Minister's signature.
It is a cod.
If we ring the Minister's office we are told not to ring again.
That is not true.
The budget has some good points but the spending is being done in an unfair way. I refer in particular to the 2.5 per cent increase in social welfare payments. As the country is doing so well economically we should all share in those improvements. The miserable increase to old age pensioners and widows is a disgrace and represents an uncaring and callous decision. The elderly laid the ground work for all of us and surely it is only fair that those who have struggled for many years should be the first to be looked after when times are good as everyone acknowledges they are. The elderly were treated shabbily. The miserly increase of 2.5 per cent will erode their living standards because all the experts agree that inflation will be higher than that.
How in God's name did the Minister so quickly forget the long term unemployed now he is on the other side of the House, when in many respects he was their spokesperson in recent years? The Minister used the word "honesty" earlier but this is really very dishonest.
Look at the figures.
I know the Minister is not using the State car that much but with half the trappings of power he has forgotten where he came from. Even apart from social welfare payments the Minister seems to have set aside the long term unemployed with cutbacks in community employment schemes. The previous Government targeted 100,000 people in the life of the programme but suddenly——
We are giving them real jobs.
——things are settling down nice and cosy at last year's level. It is tough luck for those who are not among the 40,000.
My main objection is to the 2.5 per cent increase to the elderly. The Minister said that old age pensioners are claiming for 5,000 children but the vast majority have no children and their treatment is savage.
How much would you have given them?
It is good that increases will be paid six weeks earlier than last year. That is something I have been preaching to my party for a long time. I hope this trend continues and that future increases will be paid on 6 April, but that does not amount to an increase of 3 per cent. Next year's increase will be based on this year's increase of 2.5 per cent, the extra .5 per cent is not cumulative so over a period they will lose out.
No. The Deputy underestimates my negotiating tactics.
I congratulate the Minister on the massive £215 million he got at the Cabinet table.
Plus almost £60 million, £272 million in total.
I thought the figure of £215 million included the £60 million. The Minister got a colossal amount of money but he made un unholy mess of its distribution. How did he make so many enemies distributing such an amount of money? A Minister could spread £30 million or £40 million in such a way that everyone would think he was great. The Minister made more enemies distributing £215 million than many another would make distributing £20 million. I do not know if this is because it is his first year in office, that he is "green" or if he is downright uncaring.
I was prepared to give the Minister the benefit of the doubt but then one looks at other aspects of the budget which affect the elderly. DIRT on special savings accounts increased to 15 per cent. People with those accounts are not high rollers, they may have cashed an insurance policy or received a lump sum payment. There seems to be a deliberate policy to screw the elderly. That is very rough, as the elderly are disorganised and do not have a lobby shouting for them. They paddle their own canoes. Perhaps the reason for being so hard on the elderly is that few of them vote for Democratic Left.
In the past money from the scheme of grants for voluntary organisations went to elderly groups for various purposes. I hope the Minister will be generous to them this year. It is most unusual for a Minister to hand over the giving of grants to a colleague and I am sure the Minister for Health, will be delighted. The Minister appears to be saying he is not interested in grant-aiding voluntary groups for the elderly, as this is not his area.
Respite care is a matter for the Department of Health.
This is most extraordinary and perhaps it is a generous gesture. The Minister appears to be making a public statement that he does not give a damn about the elderly, that he is stuck with them and, if he could, would pass this area over to Deputy Noonan. Many constituents are disappointed with the Minister to whom they looked with hope. When Deputy De Rossa got that ministry they thought all their Christmases had come together.
When they got rid of Fianna Fáil they thought all their Christmases had come together.
The Minister made his name in the last 12 or 13 years by capitalising on the plight of the disadvantaged and the poor, but now he seems to have forgotten them. I hope he will redress this and put the elderly on top of his list.
I will bear that in mind.
I am glad Deputy Eric Byrne has come back to hear the truth. We must give credit where credit is due. The Minister stated he was solely responsible for the tremendous increase in child benefit. Such a manner of assisting families is a proper way to alleviate poverty. This did not happen ten to 15 years ago but the change was made by a Fianna Fáil Government and has been continued by this Government. In 1993 there was a substantial increase in child benefit up to £20 and a high rate of £23 for the fourth and subsequent children which in 1994 went up to £25. I am glad the Minister has continued this trend.
At this juncture, the Minister will be remembered for the miserly increase of 2.5 per cent, the lowest in 30 years.
That is not true.
This is a disgrace, something which was not expected from a Democratic Left Minister for Social Welfare in a Government dominated by the Labour Party. Government members are living in a fool's paradise if they believe people are happy with this budget. It is clear to anyone willing to listen to the public that they are most upset by Democratic Left.
We can see the Deputy is bruised by his experience with the Labour Party.
Not half as bruised as the Deputy.
They expected that party to look after the less well off in society. I am disappointed with the performance of Democratic Left. We have not seen Senator Sherlock in the constituency since the budget was introduced.It appears he is hiding, seeking people to work in concert with him, and is being counselled.
Can we use the Deputy's counsellors?