I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, line 13, after "one" to insert "and may be cited together as the Social Welfare Acts, 1993 to 2001".
There was a full discussion on this amendment on Committee Stage. I await the Minister's response.
Order of Business. - Social Welfare Bill, 2001: Report Stage.
As I said on Committee Stage, there is no need for the collective citation outlined by Deputy Broughan. Section 3(8) of the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act, 1993 covers this issue. It states:
References in any other enactment to the "Social Welfare Acts" means this Act and every enactment which is to be construed together with it as one.
Amendment No. 1 is not required.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 4 is related to amendment No. 2. Is it agreed that amendments Nos. 2 and 4 be discussed together? Agreed.
Mr. Hayes
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 5, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
"(3) The Minister shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, issue a statement to both Houses of the Oireachtas, at intervals not exceeding two months duration, on the latest statistical information on the effects of inflation on the measures contained in Parts 2, 3 and 4 of this Act.".
This matter was discussed on Committee Stage. It relates to the unprecedented situation last year when the meagre social welfare increases across the board did not compensate social welfare recipients for an exceptional increase in the consumer price index and inflation in the latter part of the year. These amendments seek to insert in the Bill an obligation on the Minister to come before both Houses of the Oireachtas at intervals not exceeding two months to report the latest statistical information on the effects of inflation. This provision is crucial.
The main flaw with last year's Social Welfare Act was the inordinate increase in the CPI and its effects on those on low incomes. Inflation has devastating effects on those on low incomes, particularly those on low fixed incomes. We saw such effects last year where the 3% increase in social welfare payments did nothing to compensate for increases in inflation, particularly in the latter part of the year.
Who is to say that, between 1 April and 31 December 2001, the effects of inflation will not be revisited on those on low incomes? By accepting these amendments we would provide a mechanism whereby the Minister will have to, in effect, renegotiate social welfare increases. Last year the Minister sought Cabinet approval for a package of measures to help those on social welfare. However, he and his proposals were put to one side in a curt manner which did nothing to compensate those who had lost out due to inflation. The net result was that people on social welfare lost out last year because inflation outstripped the increases in allowances and benefits. That is why this amendment is crucial.
In terms of general legislation it would be a good idea to allow some kind of inflation proofing device whereby the Minister can present the latest information to the House on a regular basis. Such a process would help his case before Cabinet colleagues and would not leave him in the exposed position in which he found himself last year. Accepting these amendments will strengthen the Minister's hand when he attempts to renegotiate packages during the year. Last year's experience could be revisited this year. Inflation is already having an impact on those on low incomes and we have to ensure that those incomes are adequately protected against the effects of inflation.
Last year inflation had a disastrous impact on those on low incomes. Early last year the Opposition repeatedly questioned the Minister for Finance on the likely inflation figure for 2000. In the first few months after last year's budget inflation was dangerously higher than was anticipated but the Minister kept reassuring us that the annual rate would be 3.5% to 4%. In the event we had a disastrous situation before last Christmas where prices were rising at 6.8%. The paltry £4 increase which the Minister gave to the 1.5 million people who primarily exist on social welfare incomes was wiped out by inflation. There is no debate among economists that this actually happened.
On Committee Stage I referred to an interesting report published by the ESRI. The report commended the Minister for a number of innovations he introduced in the past three and a half years. However, it also highlighted that he had failed to ensure that social welfare benefits kept pace with the rate of price increases. The ESRI concluded that social welfare increases kept ahead of inflation by just a few pence.
The reality for many pensioners, those on invalidity and disability payments, carers, those on low incomes, children and others is that the cost of fuel, heating, food, transport and the gamut of family expenditure increased rampantly last year. People rightly felt in a fragile mood as no one knew whether the situation would worsen. That is the reason for these amendments.
There is still concern about the effects of inflation this year. The Minister, Deputy McCreevy, has again insisted that, given the experience of last year, we will not have the same disastrous inflation rate this year. However, there is still concern about this issue and that is why amendment No. 4 seeks to oblige the Minister to report to the House to see how we can alleviate the problems suffered by those on social welfare incomes as the year progresses.
This is an exciting year in one sense. There are nine months to go to what is probably one of the most dramatic events in our history when we join the single currency. We were linked to an international currency for many centuries and most argue that its impact was disastrous for us as it was combined with trading restrictions which held the nation back for hundreds of years. However, we are heading into this development in an era of free trade where our own ingenuity, entrepreneurship and hard work will enable us to survive.
The past two years or so have been a bit helter-skelter and who is to say that the situation will not be worse after 1 January 2002, particularly for the first few months. There will be some confidence once the currency is in our pockets and as we trade in euros. If he is still in government the Minister will have the comfort of knowing that rates will appear higher when given in euros while not being any higher in real terms.
Many seniors' groups in my constituency have expressed concern that, as happened in the early 1970s, there will be an attempt to rip people off when paying for groceries, drink, transport and so on as the new currency is introduced. There are genuine concerns that it will be a difficult time for people and we must keep the situation under review.
I referred to the attempts by the Minister's media friends, particularly one who writes for, I think, The Sunday Business Post, who put out favourable stories towards the end of last year regarding the Minister's deep concern about this issue, knowing that he had not provided for increases in social welfare payments but that he was going to do something about this. The Minister went to Cabinet where, tragically, the PD wing of Fianna Fáil, led by the Minister for Finance, with the sole PD Cabinet member, told him to get lost. This was the story spun by the Minister's spin doctors for friendly journalists.
The reality was that all the Minister succeeded in getting was an increase in the Christmas allowance from 70% to 100%, which I have suggested for as long as I have been party spokesperson. The Minister should have introduced this measure two years ago. He finally did so but there is a problem. Fortunately, on the initiative of my colleagues in the trade union movement, a review mechanism was inserted into the Pro gramme for Prosperity and Fairness so that if inflation went haywire working people could be protected. That review mechanism was successfully triggered by the trade union movement, including Mr. Cassells, Mr. Geraghty and other colleagues. A re-negotiation took place and people got additional money. The Minister, Opposition spokespersons and backbenchers are the only people who can insert any kind of review mechanism for social welfare recipients, but it is not there. If my party is involved in Government after the forthcoming general election I hope it will insert such a mechanism in the Social Welfare Bill, although it would be more difficult for the Minister of the day. He would constantly have to keep a sharp eye on the Minister for Finance to monitor prices. He would also have to be alert and willing to protect people on low fixed incomes in the social welfare system. At the moment, however, there is no such mechanism and that is the reason for amendments Nos. 2 and 4 which are very important.
A few years ago my colleague, the former Minister, Deputy De Rossa, said he felt that such a mechanism should have been considered. At this stage we should formally implement it and have a system whereby increases are given to social welfare recipients. The Minister provided for increases before Christmas, although most interest groups and representative bodies in the social welfare area wanted a basic increase of at least £10, and the general request was for £14 per week given the resources available through a huge budget surplus. The Minister did not go the full mile; he went part of it but it may not be enough to keep ahead of inflation. I urge the Minister to consider these important amendments in order to cope with inflation and rising prices for people on low fixed incomes.
Seeking a report based on inflation is an old chestnut. It is a bit like cutting and pasting last year's amendments. I note that amendment No. 4 refers to "the Act of 2000" which was last year's Bill, but this will be the 2001 Act. There was a bit of jockeying for position because Deputy Hayes's amendment No. 2 refers to section 1(3), while Deputy Broughan – who probably had the amendment in first, because it was on the first list – has inserted it as a separate section.
Mr. Hayes
My amendment was ruled out of order on Committee Stage.
It would depend in which section it was inserted and whether it was a subsection of the previous section.
Mr. Hayes
It was in from day one.
It was interesting that Deputy Broughan was grasping Deputy De Rossa to the Labour Party's bosom.
He is our president.
Exactly, the president of the Labour Party.
A lifetime president. Ceausescu thought he was too.
In 1997, when Deputy Broughan was canvassing votes on the doorsteps, I am sure he felt the brunt of the actions of Deputy De Rossa in the increase he gave to old age pensioners as Minister for Social Welfare. Given the inflation rate at the time, that increase could be compared unfavourably to the increases that have been given in 2000 and 2001. Child benefit has increased between 54% and 59%, personal rates have risen from between 10.4% and 11.7%, and the widow's or widower's contributory pension has risen by 14.5%. Those type of increases are prevalent throughout all the payments provided for in the Bill.
The Central Statistics Office is an excellent body and there is an opportunity on a regular basis for Deputies to use their own computers to figure out what the changes are and how they correspond with inflation. When the budget was announced, inflation was at its highest level but it has fallen by more than 2% since then. Fortunately or otherwise, when the Minister was seeking funds for increases inflation was at its peak. That may have helped the Minister to obtain these excellent increases in social welfare payments.
With regard to the financial aspects of any bill, I note that Opposition spokespersons always seek bi-monthly or quarterly reports to compare inflation with social welfare increases. The business of the House could be taken up forever with such statistical reports from the CSO, but those reports could easily be made up by researchers or by Deputies themselves. If there is a problem it can be brought to the notice of the Dáil either by question or motion. These amendments would not be helpful, either to the Bill or to the political process of the House.
I thank Deputies for tabling these amendments. I concur with Deputy Ardagh who made some excellent and very relevant points as to whether such a review mechanism is necessary. There is a committee of the House which can monitor inflation trends, and Deputy Ardagh is a member of it. My Department also constantly monitors the inflation rate. I will give Deputies some figures to illustrate this. The Estimate for social welfare rose this year by 15.5% over last year, and in the preceding year it rose by 7.7%. The social welfare budget level has risen significantly and these are probably the highest increases in recent times.
The budget provided for a social welfare increase of £850 million, which is more than double the previous year's figure and more than four times what it was just four years ago when Members of the Opposition were in Government. We on this side of the House need not take any lectures from those on the opposite benches. When we came into office, we undertook to pay real increases in social welfare and that is what the people have got. Because of the trends in inflation towards the latter half of last year, the Government decided to compensate people through the increases given in the budget, which are now manifesting themselves in this Bill. Not only did we give the normal real increase for this year but we allowed for inflation towards the latter end of last year.
Deputy Broughan referred to the Christmas bonus. Whenever my party was in Government, the rate of Christmas bonus was either maintained or increased. This time, we are bringing the Christmas bonus back up to the 100% level at which it was first introduced in 1980. I remind the Deputies opposite that, when their parties were in Government, and only then, the Christmas bonus was reduced. In 1985, when they were in Government, if my memory serves me correctly, the bonus was reduced from its original 1980 level of 100% down to 75%. In the following year, 1986, it was further reduced to 65%.
When my party was in Government in 1989, we increased it to 70%, where it has remained ever since. The opposition parties were in Government for some intervening years but they did not increase it. This Government, of which my party is the major member, has increased the Christmas bonus to 100% and we take some pride in that. Added to that, there was a compensatory element in this year's increases for the difficulties which arose mainly for people on the general increase, rather than for old age pensioners, although the latter also got very substantial increases.
With regard to the euro changeover on 1 January next, to which Deputy Broughan referred, I fully accept that it will be difficult for people, just as decimalisation was. I have already given a commitment in the House, as has the Minister for Finance, that no social welfare recipients will lose out in the process. Where relevant, people will gain, because all social welfare payments will be rounded up to the nearest 10 cents.
As far as the State's position is concerned, there will be no "skulduggery", if that is what the Deputy is referring to. While I cannot speak for what may happen outside of my own Department's sphere of influence, there is obviously an issue to be addressed by other Departments and by the Consumers' Association, in relation to the situation in shops throughout the country. I suggest to Deputy Broughan that he should allay people's fears, rather than adding to them, though perhaps he is not doing so. He should relay this Government's guarantee that social welfare payments will be rounded up to the nearest 10 cents and that people will not lose out. Given that increases will come into effect from 1 January, people will gain very substantially as a result of changes in the forthcoming budget.
At the risk of repetition, which Deputies opposite have also engaged in, I remind the House of the Government's action, over the past four budgets, in progressively bringing forward the date of payment of social welfare increases, which used to apply only from late June or early July. The timing of social welfare increases and changes in taxation will now coincide, for the first time in living memory, on 5 April this year and on 1 January next year. The latter adjustment represents a cost to the exchequer, and a gain to the recipients, of £85 million.
Mr. Hayes
Including child benefit?
No – that commitment is in relation to the general increases, which the Government has undertaken to bring forward to 1 January, as from next year. I have no doubt that, when we go to the people next year, they will recognise and appreciate the significance of what we are doing in that regard. In relation to child benefit, we have given an undertaking that we will bring the payments forward progressively. This year's substantial child benefit payments will be made in June, as compared to September last year and every previous year. The Government is proud of its record in starting on this route. None of the parties opposite did anything in that respect when they were on this side of the House. The increases in child benefit this year are a massive £25 each for the first two children and £30 each for the third and subsequent children. The corresponding increases given by the previous Government, in their last budget just three and a half years ago, were only £1 and £5 respectively and—
That was before the Minister's time.
—I can only say shame on them.
In relation to the consumer price index, Deputy Broughan has again repeated the figure on which I corrected him at Committee Stage. He is—
Is the Minister an economist as well as an historian?
—misleading the people. I challenged him to look at the CSO figures for the consumer price index, which quite clearly show that the rate of inflation for last year was not 7% or 6.8%. The Deputy should not mislead the people, having failed to take the opportunity to check it out between Committee and Report Stages.
In any event, the Consumer Price Index, which is published monthly by the Central Statistics Office some four weeks after the date to which it refers, sets out the rate of inflation for the month in question. It is, and always has been, standard practice in my Department, when preparing the budgetary estimates, to look at the overall situation for the year. The figures are based on a projection of inflation for the following year and, if there is any problem, the compensatory element comes into play in the following year. For example, in one recent year, the Department of Finance's forecast rate of inflation, on which the budget was predicated, was 2%. However, the actual inflation figure came to 1.6%, leaving people with a gain of 0.4%.
Mr. Hayes
Interesting for people who have to wait until next year.
If the Deputy ever gets to this side of the House, he will be better informed. The people concerned gained. When this year's problem came, particularly in relation to people on the general increase, that was taken care of in the payments which we are now discussing and which Fine Gael and Labour Deputies voted against. I trust that my colleagues on this side of the House have made it widely known—
(Interruptions.)
—that Fine Gael and Labour voted against increases of £10 for old age pensioners, £8 in general increases, £25 for the first two children and £30 for the third and subsequent children.
I repeat that the increase in the social welfare provisions of last December's budget amounted to £850 million, or four times greater than anything given by the rainbow coalition. The significant improvements in the levels of weekly rates represent increases ranging from 9% to 14.5%, which is way ahead of the forecast rate of inflation for the coming year.
This means, in effect, that there will be real increases of between 4.3% and 9.6% this year based on an expected rate of inflation of 4.5%. Payments to couples are being increased by between 7.2% and 11.2% in real terms.
In addition to providing for real increases ahead of projected inflation, this year's budget increases also compensate for reductions in the level of real increases provided for last year which arose as a result of the higher than expected rate of inflation. As stated on Committee Stage, the Government, on entering office, committed itself to providing for real increases, namely, increases ahead of the rate of inflation. For example, social welfare pensioners aged 66 years and over have received total increases of between 36% and 41.5%. This represents an overall real increase of between 19% and 24% when compared to increases in the cost of living during the period in question.
It is illustrative to provide figures in respect of rates of inflation in recent years. In 1995, when, as Deputy Broughan lovingly stated, Deputy De Rossa was Minister—
Mr. Hayes
And there was a budget deficit.
No, that is not correct. Deputy Hayes claims that his party created the Celtic tiger in 1994 and that we had nothing to do with it.
Mr. Hayes
We turned the economy around for the Government.
In 1995, however, his party made a policy decision to the effect that social welfare increases would match the rate of inflation which stood at 2.5%. It was decided, as a matter of policy, the people would not receive any real increases.
Mr. Hayes
The Minister did not match the rate last year.
Shame on Fine Gael for that. When my party has been in government, it has endeavoured as far as possible, in good times and in bad – such as the late 1980s – to give people—
Mr. Hayes
It gave them the dirty dozen cuts.
Acting Chairman
Deputy Hayes should speak through the Chair. He will have two opportunities, one of which will be unlimited, to reply to the Minister.
We gave real increases—
Acting Chairman
Deputy Hayes must allow the Minister to speak.
Mr. Hayes
He should speak to the amendment.
Acting Chairman
If anyone is out of order, the Chair will be so advised. The Chair has not been advised that anyone is out of order.
As always, the truth is a bitter pill to swallow.
Mr. Hayes
It is bitter for the poor.
Deputy Hayes does not want to hear the truth. If Members consider the real increases and then the percentage increases, taking account of the CPI, which have been given during the lifetime of the Government, the figures indicate that we have given more than any previous Administration. I outlined the position on old age pensioners, but a similar situation obtains in respect of non-old age pensioners who have received real increases well above any previously provided for.
Under the PPF, we undertook to make substantial progress in the period to 2003 towards increasing pension payments to £100 per week. In the recent budget, we totally fulfilled our commitments in that regard. Deputy Broughan stated that there is no mechanism, other than the Department, to cater for the needs of social welfare recipients. I disagree with that assertion. He is doing a disservice to the organisations in the voluntary and community pillar—
The Minister does not listen to them.
—and his so-called colleagues in the trade unions who always state that they are looking after the needs of those on social welfare. I would like the trade unions to place greater emphasis on catering for the needs of those in employment in the partnership discussions. However, that is a matter for the unions. The Deputy is doing a disservice to the organisations in the voluntary and community pillar which were good advocates on behalf of those on social welfare payments in the negotiations on the PPF.
In the negotiations on the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, which was signed late last year, it was agreed that a working group comprising representatives from the various social partners, including the unions, would be established to examine the range of complex issues associated with the benchmarking and indexation of adult and child social welfare payments. As part of its deliberations, the working group will be examining the implications of adopting a specific approach to the ongoing up-rating or indexation of payments, including their long-term economic, budgetary, PRSI contribution, distributive and incentive implications in the light of trends in economic, demographic and labour markets.
I could speak about this matter at length, but I will not do so.
Please do not go on.
Mr. Hayes
We thank the Minister.
I know the Deputies on the other side of the House are sick listening to me. However, I must make these arguments because there are people outside who, perhaps, listen to and believe the cant uttered by those Deputies regarding the great things their parties have achieved. For example, a Fine Gael Senator recently claimed credit for something the Government had done.
Mr. Hayes
The Minister is not averse to doing the same thing.
The hypocrisy of it. Fine Gael constantly issues documents claiming credit for everything the Government has done. Is it any wonder that members of the public are cynical when they witness this type of behaviour?
Mr. Hayes
They benefit to a greater extent when we are in government.
I wish to provide a number of statistics and I will not be selective. I accept that the rainbow coalition was in government was in power for three years, while we have been in power for four. However, the percentage increase in old age pensions during the rainbow's term of office was 9.9%. Since we have been in government, increases have amounted to 35.9%. Therefore, under the rainbow coalition real increases only amounted to 4% while during our term of office the figure is 19.1%
The rainbow coalition's record was shameful.
Similarly, if one considers means-tested social assistance payments—
The Minister should provide all the figures.
I will do so.
What about the income figures?
In relation to means-tested social assistance payments, the percentage increase in old age non-contributory pensions under the rainbow Government was 10.7% while under our guidance there has been an increase of 41.5%. The real increase in these payments under the rainbow Government was 4.7%.
Mr. Hayes
People are dancing at the crossroads.
During our term of office—
Mr. Hayes
This is fascinating stuff.
Acting Chairman
Deputy Hayes is being disorderly.
Mr. Hayes
The Minister is provoking me.
Acting Chairman
We must have order. The Deputy will have two opportunities to reply.
Mr. Hayes
This is not an Ard-Fheis, Sir.
Acting Chairman
The Minister is dealing with rates which are directly relevant to the amendments.
Mr. Hayes
He is not speaking about those rates now.
Acting Chairman
The Minister is in order. The Deputy should allow the Chair to do its job.
There is a possibility the Minister is filibustering.
I am not. Why should I filibuster in respect of good news?
Acting Chairman
Minister, the Chair is on its feet.
If anyone is filibustering it is the Opposition, which is constantly calling for votes.
Acting Chairman
The Chair is on its feet.
On a point of order, a guillotine is being applied to the debate on the Bill.
Acting Chairman
I am on my feet. Under Standing Orders, each Member is entitled to make one contribution which is not limited. The second contribution, except for the mover, is limited to two minutes. The Minister is not in breach of Standing Orders.
Opposition Members are trying to muzzle me.
Acting Chairman
I ask that the Minister and other Members speak through the Chair at all times.
To echo the words of an Opposition Member this morning, I will not be intimidated or muzzled by people such as Deputies Broughan and Hayes.
Mr. Hayes
It did not take the Member in question 40 minutes to make his statement.
I will tell the truth.
There is a guillotine on the debate.
I am coming to a conclusion.
Acting Chairman
I am aware of the fact that a guillotine is being applied.
The Opposition is being muzzled.
Acting Chairman
The Minister is about to conclude.
Mr. Hayes
Hallelujah.
Acting Chairman
I ask Members to be patient.
In relation to means-tested old age pensions, the real increase in non-contributory old age pensions was 4.7% when the rainbow coalition was in power while during our term of office the rate has risen by 24%. Even if one considers short-term unemployment assistance, the percentage increase under the rainbow coalition was 11%, a real increase of 5%, while under this Government it has been 28.4%, a real increase of 12.5%. I am sorry for going on about this but as somebody who likes to get the business done and get through all the amendments, I believe the truth has to be stated, particularly if there are people outside this House listening to this debate. As I have said on more than one occasion, I would allow any objective observer to examine the record of this Government in office as opposed to that of any other Government, even one of which my party was a member, and see that the increases and the dramatic changes that have taken place in relation to social welfare have been second to none. In relation to inflation particularly, we have kept way ahead of anything that was promised or indeed expected by the people.
Mr. Hayes rose.
Acting Chairman
Is this your intermediary two minutes or your concluding statement because you have unlimited time for your concluding remarks, as long as you speak to the amendments?
Mr. Hayes
This will be my concluding statement.
Acting Chairman
Does Deputy Broughan want to make his two minute intervention before Deputy Hayes concludes?
No, I will make a concluding statement as well because we have so many amendments—
Acting Chairman
You cannot make a concluding statement, Deputy. Only the mover of the amendment, Deputy Hayes, can make a concluding statement.
I moved an amendment as well.
Acting Chairman
No, I am sorry. It is only Deputy Hayes. That is the ruling.
I put down amendment No. 4.
Acting Chairman
It was agreed that amendments Nos. 2 and 4 would be taken together but there can be only one mover of the amendments.
I did not know that.
I did not know that but I learn about this House—
Acting Chairman
I am advised that that is the ruling.
I protest at what I believe is a filibuster of the Bill – it happened with the Finance Bill also – and the constant guillotining of the two most important Bills to come before this House.
Perhaps when the Minister's career in this House is ended he should try to take up a new career as a historian because his major interest seems to be in history. He is a selective historian, however, and he leaves out important information—
Like what?
—such as the fact that this Government had incredible resources at its disposal. The Minister keeps saying that he does not understand the inflation aspect but I know that in September and October last year, annualised inflation was 6.8%. Speaking as someone who used to teach economics, that means that for the previous 12 months inflation was running at 6.8%, which is for the bulk of the calendar year 2000.
I have the figures here.
Deputy Ardagh may be new to this kind of legislation.
Will the Deputy give way and I will give him the figures?
Acting Chairman
The Minister has two minutes available to him if he wants to come in when Deputy Broughan has concluded.
I have only two minutes. We deliberately said that since the start of the Act of 2000 because we felt that inflation last year needs to be taken into account given that there were no rises.
I spoke to people in Combat Poverty yesterday, one of the Minister's agencies. I commend them for the briefing they give us, like the Minister's own staff. They felt that the Minister had taken a step forward in that this year, for the first time, he was talking in terms of increases in social welfare related to income. If we get an opportunity to be in the Minister's seat that is the area on which we will concentrate. Social welfare increases related to income increases, but the difficulty is that the workers, through the trade union movement, had an opportunity to review their increases. For three years running this Minister will not give social welfare recipients the same rights.
Acting Chairman
Does the Minister want to avail of the two minutes?
I do, yes. The Deputy is wrong in relation to the CPI, and I will give him the figures. The figure for 2000 was plus 5.6%.
I accept that.
In the previous year, 1999, it was plus 1.6%. That was the year when the expected rate of inflation from a social welfare point of view was 2%, so people had an actual gain of 0.4%. In 1998, it was 2.4%. In 1997, it was 1.5% and in 1996 it was 1.6%.
The Deputy accused me of referring to history but I have to listen to a lot of criticism from people on the opposite side of the House who raise all sorts of issues about which they did nothing when they were in Government.
I was never in Government.
We have done an amazing amount of work over the past four budgets but I suggest that outside observers should check the record. During our time we have kept ahead of the average gross industrial earning in percentage terms in relation to social welfare. The same cannot be said for the period the parties opposite were in Government. That is one of the real yardsticks as to how a Government can perform one way or the other.
To come back to the point about a report, I have suggested to the Deputies that there is a role for the committee in regard to monitoring inflation but when one is in a Department like this and subject to the parameters of examining the 12 month period ahead, one has to have a forecast for inflation. That forecast last year was set at 3%; for this coming year it is set at 4.5%. In the framing of the budget for social welfare, cognisance is taken of that and on all occasions this Government has been in office, we have endeavoured to give real increases. In fact, we have achieved real increases for people over the lifetime of this Government.
Mr. Hayes
The Minister has not shed much light, despite his filibuster tactics in the House this morning, on the situation that affects poor people but he has put his finger on one particular policy that I would like to talk about in my concluding remarks. This is very interesting because it goes to the heart of the matter. In the course of his original comments on this set of amendments and in relation to how the increases can be given to people, the Minister said that the compensation will take place the following year. That is an interesting policy initiative from this Government. What he is actually saying is that poor people will have to wait.
That is always the way.
Mr. Hayes
That is not the case if one is in the agricultural sector. I readily admit that I do not come from an agricultural background. I come from an urban background, but any time there is a crisis in agriculture, the next day the Government responds with a package of measures, whether it is in Brussels or in Dublin, and rightly so. That is not the case in relation to property. Only last week in the Finance Bill we saw dramatic changes to the entire Government policy in relation to housing because it did not suit the landlord sector. What happens? Within a month they get their changes through the House but when it comes to poor people demanding an increase in their basic rate of pay to deal with the hyper-inflation that sometimes can occur on a three or four month basis, we are told that the compensation will take place the following year. That is the kernel of this debate because it is a systematic policy initiative on the part of this Government and, I accept, on the part of previous Governments. I will readily concede that. It is a systematic policy in relation to income distribution that the poor will have to wait.
The amendments we are now debating, No. 2 in my name and No. 4 in the name of Deputy Broughan, attempt for the first time to change that because they will clearly establish a new principle that where inflationary effects have such a devastating impact on the meagre incomes of very poor people, we will immediately kick in with intervention. That is what we are doing. We are saying that the same kind of intervention that is made for the property market and for agriculture will equally apply to social welfare recipients. We are just extending a principle that is currently in place.
The Minister gave us many history lessons and much of it was erroneous. I want to put on the record a recent reply I received from the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy. I asked the Minister to set out total social welfare expenditure from 1996 to 2001, and the Minister is right. We have seen an increase in total expenditure on social welfare. In 1996, £4.3 billion was spent on the total provisions for that year. In 1997 the figure was £4.5 billion, in 1998 it was £4.7 billion, in 1999 it was £4.9 billion, last year the figure was £5.3 billion and this year the figure is expected to be about £6.5 billion. I accept that. Let us look at the amount of money in the economy in those years. In 1996 we had a deficit of £36 million, no surplus cash. In 1997, thanks to the rainbow Government's good management, it was reduced to £35 million, and then things took off. In 1998 there was almost £1 billion pounds surplus, in 1999, £1.1 billion and in 2000, £2.4 billion. This year we are likely to have a substantial surplus.
The Minister has an unprecedented opportunity to lift the poor out of the current appalling income traps in our society. Lectures in warped historiography over a five year period will not get the Minister away from the principal fact that he has the opportunity to do something. He is not doing enough, not being radical enough in affecting incomes policy. That must be addressed.
This is my first involvement from Second Stage to Report Stage of social welfare legislation. This debate is a nonsense which makes a mockery of the Dáil because it is clear from our dialogue with the Minister on Committee and Report Stages that he is not interested in any ideas from the Opposition. This is unprecedented in my time in the House. As I understand it, in any Bill, the Government takes on board sensible suggestions from the Opposition. Otherwise, as is the case with this Bill, it becomes a party political lash for the Opposition and Fianna Fáil.
The Deputy has not been involved with a money Bill before.
Mr. Hayes
I thought the Minister was bigger than that. We will have the ridiculous situation that the budget will be announced in the first week of December and we will have to put the Social Welfare Bill through by 31 December in order to effect the changes by 1 January with no opportunity to contribute constructively to it. This is not just about money. I understand the Minister is implementing financial commitments outlined by the Minister for Finance in December. It is about how the House conducts its business. These amendments afford us the opportunity to do something radical and to have the Minister come before the House to explain how his proposals affect very poor people.
Deputy Broughan referred to the 1.2 million people dependant on social welfare. Very few people speak up for them. I do not care if that is taken as a slight on anyone in the voluntary sector. The poor are not regarded as a priority. If a person has property, is in the agricultural sector, in full employment with a union to negotiate for him, then he is on the inside track. Those on the outside track, that 1.2 million dependant on the provisions of this Bill and our deliberations, have little pulling power when it comes to policy initiatives. Therefore, it is the Opposition's obligation to put these amendments without fear or favour. This is a kernel amendment of the 43 before the House at this Stage. Because of the unprecedented financial opportunity the Minister has, there is the chance to do something real and systematic for poor people rather than wait for next year.
This morning's discussion was interesting because it exposed systematic discrimination against poor people who have to wait for another year unlike any other sector in the country.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 67; Níl, 73.
Tá
Níl
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Bradford and Stagg; Níl, Deputies S. Brennan and Power.
Amendment declared lost.
Barnes, Monica.
Barrett, Seán.
Bell, Michael.
Belton, Louis J.
Bradford, Paul.
Broughan, Thomas P.
Browne, John(Carlow-Kilkenny).
Bruton, Richard.
Burke, Liam.
Burke, Ulick.
Carey, Donal.
Clune, Deirdre.
Connaughton, Paul.
Cosgrave, Michael.
Coveney, Simon.
Crawford, Seymour.
Creed, Michael.
Currie, Austin.
Tá–continuedD'Arcy, Michael.
Deenihan, Jimmy.
Dukes, Alan.
Durkan, Bernard.
Farrelly, John.
Finucane, Michael.
Fitzgerald, Frances.
Flanagan, Charles.
Gilmore, Éamon.
Gormley, John.
Gregory, Tony.
Hayes, Brian.
Healy, Seamus.
Higgins, Jim.
Higgins, Joe.
Higgins, Michael.
Hogan, Philip.
Howlin, Brendan.
Kenny, Enda.
McCormack, Pádraic.
McDowell, Derek.
McGahon, Brendan.
McGinley, Dinny.
McGrath, Paul.
McManus, Liz.
Mitchell, Jim.
Mitchell, Olivia.
Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
Naughten, Denis.
Neville, Dan.
Noonan, Michael.
O'Keeffe, Jim.
O'Shea, Brian.
O'Sullivan, Jan.
Owen, Nora.
Penrose, William.
Perry, John.
Quinn, Ruairí.
Rabbitte, Pat.
Reynolds, Gerard.
Ring, Michael.
Ryan, Seán.
Shatter, Alan.
Shortall, Róisín.
Stagg, Emmet.
Stanton, David.
Timmins, Billy.
Upton, Mary.
Wall, Jack.
Ahern, Bertie.
Ahern, Dermot.
Ahern, Michael.
Ahern, Noel.
Andrews, David.
Ardagh, Seán.
Aylward, Liam.
Blaney, Harry.
Brady, Johnny.
Brady, Martin.
Brennan, Matt.
Brennan, Séamus.
Briscoe, Ben.
Browne, John(Wexford).
Byrne, Hugh.
Callely, Ivor.
Carey, Pat.
Collins, Michael.
Coughlan, Mary.
Cullen, Martin.
Daly, Brendan.
Davern, Noel.
de Valera, Síle.
Dempsey, Noel.
Dennehy, John.
Doherty, Seán.
Ellis, John.
Fahey, Frank.
Fleming, Seán.
Flood, Chris.
Foley, Denis.
Gildea, Thomas.
Hanafin, Mary.
Haughey, Seán.
Healy-Rae, Jackie.
Jacob, Joe.
Keaveney, Cecilia.
Kelleher, Billy.
Kenneally, Brendan.
Killeen, Tony.
Kirk, Séamus.
Kitt, Michael P.
Kitt, Tom.
Lenihan, Brian.
Lenihan, Conor.
McCreevy, Charlie.
McDaid, James.
McGennis, Marian.
McGuinness, John J.
Martin, Micheál.
Moffatt, Thomas.
Moloney, John.
Moynihan, Donal.
Moynihan, Michael.
Ó Cuív, Éamon.
O'Dea, Willie.
O'Donoghue, John.
O'Flynn, Noel.
O'Hanlon, Rory.
O'Keeffe, Batt.
O'Kennedy, Michael.
O'Malley, Desmond.
O'Rourke, Mary.
Power, Seán.
Ryan, Eoin.
Smith, Brendan.
Smith, Michael.
Treacy, Noel.
Wade, Eddie.
Wallace, Dan.
Wallace, Mary.
Woods, Michael.
Wright, G. V.
Mr. Hayes
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 5, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following subsection:
"(3) The Minister shall, as soon as may be after the passage of this Act prepare and lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the rationale for the differing commencement dates of social welfare payment increases.".
We discussed this amendment on Committee Stage. It would be churlish not to recognise the progress that has been made this year in that most of the changes resulting from this Bill will now be implemented in the first week of April. We all welcome that. However, there should not be any difference in the commencement dates of any of the social welfare increases. In the context of the UK, where the budget is being presented in the House of Commons today, all of the increases in social welfare payments are effective from the day of the budget. We should move in that direction. Last December, when the Minister for Finance presented his financial resolutions to the House, the impression was created that the changes outlined would be operative immediately, but most people have to wait for a considerable number of months before they can benefit from those changes.
What I am seeking in this amendment is a report to the House from the Minister on the rationale for varying commencement dates for social welfare payment increases, specifically child benefit. The Minister has improved the situation and is now implementing the increases in child benefit from 1 June instead of in September. That is a welcome measure and I concede its usefulness. However, I would like those payments to be brought forward to April. I understand from our Committee Stage deliberations that this would cost about £85 million this year. It would be worth paying and would be good value for money. Given that this has been highlighted from December last, the very least we could do is implement all of these changes from April.
We had a good dialogue on this on Committee Stage, but we need finality in relation to next year's provisions. It is likely that we will have a budget in the first week of December this year and that virtually all of the social welfare and tax changes will come into effect on 1 January 2002. What impact will that have, specifically in relation to child benefit? Will the commencement date of that increase be the same as for the other general increases in social welfare? We do not lack the finances to do it, and many families depend on child benefit and have been calling on the Government to dramatically increase it over the past three to four years when resources were available. They would appreciate this change. It would be worthwhile. I recommend this amendment to the House.
I strongly support this amendment. It seems incongruous that any major social welfare benefit should not come into operation at the same time as the whole range of social assistance and social insurance payments. I note that on Committee Stage the one area in respect of which the Minister would not give us a commitment was in relation to the timing of child benefit next year and on bringing it directly into line with all the other increases. The measure to bring forward the general increases to April this year was extremely welcome as is bringing forward to June the implementation of increases in child benefit. However, there seems not to be a fundamental reason all assistance and insurance payments should not come into effect at the same time as changes in tax and personal allowances for people who are working. The major promise made by the Government was that social welfare increases would be paid on 1 January next year. This target will not be met and a significant number of social welfare recipients will be paid in arrears. On Committee Stage the Minister explained at great length the situation regarding categories who have books and there is no electronic transfer and the difficulty in accommodating such people within a short period of time. However, the Minister has been in office for almost four years – he will be one of the longest serving Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs in the history of the State – and he should have anticipated the problems which would arise.
He should also have anticipated the problems in relation to the euro element. Social welfare recipients are afraid they will suffer a double whammy on 1 January 2002 in that they will have to deal with the euro and a broken Government promise that they will not receive their increases on time. The Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, gave a solemn promise in his Budget Statement that social welfare recipients would receive their increases on 1 January. We know from the Secretary General of the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs that the Minister has sold his clients in the social welfare system a pup and he will not deliver on his promise to pay them their increases on 1 January 2002.
I am glad we have been joined by the Chairman of the Select Committee on Family, Community and Social Affairs, the distinguished Fianna Fáil backbencher, Deputy Noel Ahern. He knows that people are disappointed that some unscrupulous people in the economy will seek to rip-off others in the changeover to the euro. Unfortunately, the Minister has admitted that social welfare recipients, who are already under pressure, will not receive their increases on time.
During a previous existence I made the strong case to the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Harney, on the need to put in place within the Cabinet and in her Department and the Department of Finance structures which would prevent rip-offs during the changeover to the euro and ensure that the most vulnerable and low paid people in society would not suffer a double whammy. The Minister did not indicate in his response to the previous amendment that the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs is involved in this. Why is the Minister in charge of the Department which looks after people on social assistance and social insurance not aggressively involved in dealing with this issue in a Cabinet committee which includes the Taoiseach, Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the Minister for Finance?
The prevention of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease is important. My colleague, Deputy Penrose, referred to the setting up a special task force to deal with this issue. However, for many citizens what will happen on 1 January 2002 is equally important. Why has the Minister not taken it upon himself to tell the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the Minister for Finance that he wants to ensure there are no rip-offs in the case of the people for whom he is responsible and that they are protected? The Minister admitted earlier that he has not done this. He has not acted in the way an economic Minister should act and played a role in dealing with this issue.
I strongly support the amendment. I hope the Minister, noting that he has failed to meet the target date of 1 January 2002, will do everything he can to ensure during the intervening nine months that social welfare recipients do not suffer. When will the increases in child benefit come into effect next year? Members of the Opposition were stunned to hear that the next budget will be introduced on 5 December. Why is this the case? It was indicated that the high flying mandarins in the Department of Finance, some of whom take up amazing jobs in Europe and elsewhere, put pressure on the Minister for Finance and the Taoiseach to introduce the budget on 5 December. As Deputy Hayes correctly said, if this is the case how will we deal with the Social Welfare Bill?
The Chairman of the Select Committee on Family, Community and Social Affairs probably has a view on this. Is it the case that the Government will cut and run and call a general election so that it will not have to introduce a budget later this year? It hopes it will be involved in the next Government but if it is not, so be it – if it is in Opposition it will not give a damn what happens on 1 January 2002. We are suspicious about some of the steps taken by the Minister for Finance. He looks like a guy who is clearing the decks. In this case he may be clearing the decks of the Titanic. Is he doing this for some ulterior purpose? I wonder whether the Minister and Government really care about the target date of 1 January 2002 as they may not be in office.
Mr. Hayes
They will not be there. The Minister is some Leonardo Di Caprio.
I thank Deputy Broughan for his nice comments, even if I do not agree with most of his points. The one point on which I agree relates to the introduction of the budget on 5 December. Obviously there are management problems in terms of condensing the work, etc., but I thought it would have been brought forward by a few weeks.
The introduction of increases months after they were announced by the Minister in his Budget Statement used to be a burning issue. It is extra ordinary how quickly an issue ceases to be a problem once it is solved. To be fair, the move forward in this respect started before the Minister came into office. I think the then Minister, Deputy De Rossa, or the Fianna Fáil-Labour Government started it seven or eight years ago. Prior to this the increase did not come into effect until mid-July. Ministers initially moved the date forward by one week every second year. In the past few years under this Minister the date jumped from mid-July to early July, mid-June, early June, early May, early April, while now it is January. Huge strides have been made and this is now a non-issue. Ministers only get the kudos once. The same applies to social welfare recipients who only get the benefit when the date is moved forward; they do not get the benefit on an annual basis.
I do not agree with Deputy Broughan's points on the target date of 1 January 2002. Many parents did not collect child benefit and let it accumulate for two or three months so that they could buy shoes, etc. for their children. The notion that the world will fall down if parents have to wait six weeks or two months for the increase in child benefit is nonsense. Many parents, intelligently, do not collect child benefit for one or two months so that they can accumulate enough money to buy larger items. If it is collected every week it is usually thrown in with the housekeeping money.
The amendment calls on me to report on the rationale between the different commencement dates. I do not want to repeat what I have said, but it is important to again emphasis that when the Government came to office four years ago there was a huge divergence between the tax and social welfare systems.
Time and again on the talk shows people complained when a budget announcement was made that tax rates could come into force reasonably quickly, with an obvious lead-in time, while the people on social welfare had to wait. This Government has endeavoured – I have played my part in pushing for it and I thank the Deputy for his remarks – to align tax and social welfare so that social welfare would be paid on the same day as the taxation rates kick in. At a cost of £85 million the payment date is being brought forward in one fell swoop from 5 April to 1 January. The Government deserves credit for endeavouring to keep the period between announcement and payment to the bare minimum. The reason the 5 December budget was chosen was that people would be paid from 1 January. At no stage have I hidden the fact that there are difficulties given the type of system in place where 600,000 of the 900,000 on social welfare have payment books. Changing books is laborious. If anyone wants to be paid his or her increase on the due date in the first week of January – there is a time span of a week or more for the different schemes to kick in – he or she has the option to go on electronic fund transfer. Obviously the main desire of people is to remain with the tried and trusted book. Given that these books go out twice a year there is a six-month cycle. If the books were to be available for everybody on 1 January the budget announcement would have to be in July.
The Minister could have done that this year.
It could have been done, but one would be accused of declaring that people are entitled to an increase in July but would not get it until 1 January. It was a political decision by the Government to bring the payments forward to 1 January. The announcement that the Government was changing the tax year from 5 April to 1 January took people by surprise as did the decision to do likewise with social welfare payments. Consequent to that decision certain changes will have to be made. The Government decided the budget would be on 5 December, that the social welfare increases would take effect from 1 January and that the vast majority, because they are paid by books, would get their increases in or around mid-February plus arrears at that time. To ensure that position is not repeated in following years the Government has decided to discuss the matter of the production of books which is subject to competition and contract, but it is its intention to invest further in the delivery of the post office book so that the lead-in time will be reduced and the bi-annual book will not cause a problem. While the Deputies on the far side make some play of the fact that people will not be paid on 1 January they will still get their full social welfare payment in mid-February including the arrears from 1 January.
That always happened.
These people will be fully compensated at the time. They will be happy to receive a payment in mid-February. In effect the time is short between 5 December and mid-February. Commentators both inside and outside the House said during the first summer we were in office that the Government would not last until the end of that summer. That has been said by the same commentators every year, yet we are approaching the fifth summer.
When the Government goes, it will go with a bang.
The Taoiseach and others, including me, have been explicit that so far as the Government is concerned we would endeavour to go the full term but people did not believe us. When we said we would deliver five budgets none of the commentators would believe us.
Deputy Noel Ahern was not told.
Deputy Ahern is entitled to his view—
He is correct.
—but he was not correct, and he would be the first to acknowledge that. When the Government decided to have the budget on 5 December the penny started to drop. Any Deputy who says we could not deliver our fifth budget is living in cloud cuckoo land. It would have been cuter perhaps to have the budget in October and we might have been able to run before the payments kicked in but the reality is that this Government will continue to the first half of 2002. It will deliver on its promise of five budgets and continue the massive increases provided in social welfare, particularly in child benefit, unless the Opposition trips it up.
The social welfare increases during the Rainbow Government operated for 29 weeks out of 52 in the particular year. This Government increased the number of payment weeks by two in the first year, by four in the second year and by a further four this year. At the time of the next budget the payment weeks will be increased by 12 or 13. When this budget kicks in all the budget increases will, in effect, be given for 52 weeks of the year. Even the Opposition would have to acknowledge that that is a significant change.
To bring child benefit forward in 2001 would cost £28 million for each month it is brought forward, based on the increases. Some £330 million was dedicated this year to child benefit increases and next year will be the same. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to know that if the increases are bought forward by three months it costs money. To bring them forward from June to April would cost approximately £56 million. Out of a budget of £330 million, the payments could be increased by £X but then there would not be room to bring them forward. We decided to give a massive increase, £25 a month for the first two children and £30 for the third and subsequent child, and bring forward the payments by three months, which reduces the overall figure.
The Deputies are trying to get me to outline what we will introduce in terms of child benefit in the next budget. I will not do so but, apart from dedicating £330 million this year, we will invest an extra £330 million for the second year in a row in child benefit. A percentage of that will be used to bring forward the payments again if the Government takes that policy decision. We have already set out on the path of bringing forward payments from September to June and I would like us to do something similar in the next budget.
As I said on Committee Stage, the Government has endeavoured as much as it can to rationalise the payment dates. The issue could be examined by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Family, Community and Social Affairs. My officials are annoyed to be called mandarins. They have done good work and Deputies have acknowledged that they are available to brief them at any time.
Mr. Hayes
Any time the Minister refers to the Government he uses the royal "we". I am not certain he knows everything that is in the Taoiseach's mind given the comments of his former mentor, Charles J. Haughey who described the Taoiseach as the most devious and cunning of them all. The Minister should put it down to experience because he might be proved wrong on this. He may not have the inside track he thinks he has.
The Minister has admitted there will be a budget on 5 December. According to the schedule of Dáil sittings for the remainder of the year, the Christmas recess begins on Friday, 14 December. The budget will be on 5 December with the usual statements and responses on 6 December and between that and 14 December the Finance Bill and the Social Welfare Bill must be put through the House to ensure the provisions they contain can be implemented on 1 January 2002. How is that possible?
We will sit on Christmas Eve.
Mr. Hayes
We will have our turkey and ham and pudding in the House on 25 December.
Social welfare recipients will not be too worried about whether the Deputy is here.
Mr. Hayes
This is important. Two years ago the Government informed us it would realign the tax and social welfare codes on 1 January 2002. We applauded the Government but it is scrambling at the last minute to figure out how to process the necessary legislation through the House. It is not plausible. How can the Finance Bill and the Social Welfare Bill pass through both Houses in that time? If we think it is bad in this House, our colleagues in the Seanad will sit on 31 December. How will this work?
We have exposed the political motivation in this through our amendment to get ready for an election and hand out the goodies at any given time. That is why the Government does not want to backdate the payments to 1 January and wants to issue cheques in mid-February to clear the decks, as Deputy Broughan said.
Officials in the Department of Finance have said the Finance Bill will be introduced after Christmas. Is it possible that the Social Welfare Bill could be introduced in 2002?
There are a number of ways to process the legislation. I fully accept Deputy Hayes's comment that it is a political decision to align the codes on 1 January because we believe that is the correct course of action but it is not a political decision to issue payments in mid-February. We will be able to say to social welfare recipients that they will get their increases over 52 weeks and not 29 weeks per year as was the case when Fine Gael was in Government. There will be more money in their pockets. The decision to bring forward social welfare payments from 5 April to 1 January will cost £85 million and social welfare recipients, who need assistance, will gain that amount. The Government made a genuine political decision to do so.
The system caters for payments to 900,000 people per week and I take my hat off to my staff who experience few problems in the delivery of payments.
Mr. Hayes
This change has been coming down the tracks for the past two years.
It takes time to change such a system.
Mr. Hayes
The Government has had two years.
The change has nothing to do with an election. Irrespective of whether the budget is announced on 5 December or on an earlier date, more than 600,000 people will still not receive their increases until mid-February because of the system, as I explained on Committee Stage.
The passing of the legislation should be the least of our worries. The primary reason we are here in terms of social welfare provision is to deliver money to recipients and to give them reasonable increases.
Mr. Hayes
Correct.
There are a number of ways to arrange the legislative requirements to bring forward the payments. We are examining them. A short Bill to cover the intervening period may be introduced followed by a longer Bill or regulations may be introduced followed by a Bill. While Deputy Hayes thinks 900,000 social welfare recipients would be worried about whether he would have to have his Christmas dinner in the House, I do not.
Mr. Hayes
I know because it has been clear from the Minister's contributions that he does not care. For the past two years following the Government decision the Minister should have been preparing the changeover mechanism in his Department whereby the increases could be delivered to people on 1 January. It is not good enough for the Minister to come into the House to inform us he still has not worked out the mechanism to be used. He is supposed to be running a Department and keeping a keen eye on developments. There is a plethora of technology available and advances have been made but the Minister has not yet worked out how he will introduce the changes. That demonstrates gross incompetence by the head of a Department in dealing with this issue.
The decision was taken two years but the Minister still does not know what he is doing. The amendment has exposed gross incompetence on the part of the Minister in terms of his management of the delivery of increases. The business to be conducted by the House between 5 December and the Christmas recess is as clear as mud because the Government has not worked out the changeover. It has not done so because it wants to keep its options open. That is why the Government has decided not to increase child benefit in the first week of April similar to every other increase. It wants windows of opportunity and privately all Government party members admit that.
It is part of the Fianna Fáil cute hoorism that we normally witness approaching an election. Fianna Fáil wants different dates whereby the election can be called, whether it is the first week of April when the new social welfare increases and tax concessions come into play or 1 June when the child benefit increases come into effect. Next year people will receive a little more money in mid-February and Fianna Fáil will look upon that as another window of opportunity. This is Fianna Fáil cute hoorism at its worst. The Minister learned so well from his mentor, Mr. Haughey, through the years. I know the Minister had a strong loyalty to Mr. Haughey.
Chief Whip.
I did not ever stab a leader in the back.
Mr. Hayes
We know the Minister's history – he has learned from the master's table. This is all about political motivation.
I wish to correct the record. I mislead the House in relation to one figure I gave earlier. The figure £85 million should have been £112 million.
Mr. Hayes
The Government has £4 billion.
Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.