Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I must congratulate the Tánaiste and the Government on the budget presentation which was a masterpiece in spin and public relations. However, reality is dawning more quickly than could have been foreseen. For example, people are reading today about the nefarious consequences of the cap on tax relief for those with private health insurance. Premiums will increase immediately. This is happening at a time when thousands of people are leaving the system every month and will be at the expense of the already overburdened public health system. The decision to snatch back 135,000 medical cards from people who need them is also getting attention.

In his programme for Government the Tánaiste stated he would maintain social welfare rates. However, in the past three budgets substantial cuts have taken place, including to child benefit, maternity benefit, the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance and the respite care grant. The redundancy rebate has been abolished; the household benefits package has been slashed, while the supplementary welfare budget has been reduced substantially. In this budget a measure has been introduced to pauperise the young unemployed. Is this not a cut to the core social welfare rate? One of the Tánaiste's colleagues stated the object of this change was to stop the young from watching flat screen television seven days a week. However, just before its website crashed, Labour Youth described this decision as "regressive, counter productive and fundamentally unjust". With whom does the Tánaiste agree? Does he agree with his colleague who says it is to stop people watching flat screen television seven days a week or with the youth wing of his party which describes this change as regressive, counter productive and fundamentally unjust? It is not a cut to the core rate of jobseeker's allowance?

See this speech in context