Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)

Yesterday's budget was supposed to be a patriotic call to action, with a "We are all in this together" motto. We are all in this together, not by choice, not because we should be or because the rest of Europe is in the same mire, but because the main party in power got us here. Every citizen is being asked to join hands and share the pain of the Minister, Deputy Brian Lenihan, but he has ignored the fact that some are better equipped to survive that pain than others.

The Minister for Finance told us yesterday it is Government policy "to target resources at those in greatest need". If one takes that at face value, it sounds like a worthwhile policy. The real test of this policy, however, was whether the Minister carried through on what he said, but, of course, he did not.

Many people will ask why it is only now we are hearing about those in greatest need and why it is only now the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Hanafin, is worried about people becoming dependent on social welfare. Were there not opportunities in every budget in the past 11 years to develop these concerns and tackle them head on?

Targeting was not the Government approach up to now. The opposite was frequently the case. I will give the House examples of the responses we have received from various Ministers in the past when we discussed targeting payments. For example, the then Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Cullen, told us not even a year ago that the policy of support for pensioners has been for many years to give priority to increasing the personal rates of pension rather than supplements such as the living alone allowance — no targeting there. The current Minister, Deputy Hanafin, voiced similar sentiments in speaking about the fuel allowance less than four months ago, when she stated:

The income maintenance needs of those on social welfare payments have also been met in recent years through significantly increased primary social welfare rates. Government policy is focused on increasing social welfare rates to ensure that people can meet their basic living costs throughout the year and also achieve an improvement in quality of life.

There is no targeting there. Possibly the best examples are reserved for the Minister, Deputy Brian Lenihan. As Minister with responsibility for children he did nothing to target child benefit towards those who need it most, despite many recommendations about the creation of a second tier. Yet last night on "Prime Time" he lectured us that the big issue in regard to child benefit is that:

"We have very high child poverty levels in this country still [at least he finally admitted it, but whether he will do anything about it is another question] because we insist on having an indiscriminatory untargeted approach to this question. I want to look at all the moneys that are available and see how we can target those who are most in need."

Let us contrast that with his comments of just two years ago when he said "Government makes choices and as Minister for children, I am delighted that this Fianna Fáil-led Government has consistently chosen to increase the level of direct payments to parents". When did this change of heart come about? When did the Minister change from being delighted to being indiscriminatory and untargeted? Was it when he realised his predecessors failed children in the boom? Now, those children will pay for it in a recession. What will the Minister do to target children in poverty? He will wait for a report.

Budget 2009 failed to protect the most vulnerable groups in society, those who are welfare dependent, children, older people and lone parents. The Minister for Finance should define for us what he means by "little people". It is not a phrase I like or use as it is disparaging. If he meant the people I mentioned, he has not helped them, nor has he lived up to the commitments he had outlined. The elderly got several knocks. The withdrawal of the medical card will probably ensure the Health Service Executive will appoint a few more administrators to deal with that, but it will result in some elderly people opting not to attend a doctor. In some parts of the country €400 will not even pay for six visits to a doctor, and that is assuming one does not have to buy any medication or attend an accident and emergency unit. The increase in the payment threshold for the drugs payment scheme by €10 will affect elderly people. One can but wonder at the Fianna Fáil and Green backbenchers, as well as the token Independents, applauding increases in the old age pension that will not even keep pensioners in line with inflation. Pensions should have been increased by at least €10. The €7 increase will be wiped out when one examines the inflationary aspects of the budget. The same pensioners will be hit by the increase in VAT, petrol and accident and emergency charges.

I want to nail the lie about the increase in VAT. My opposite number has been on local radio this morning claiming that it is all right because it is not on clothes or food and will not hurt the vulnerable. That is to ignore the fact that it is on petrol and diesel. Pensioners still drive cars. It is on kettles. Pensioners still like a cup of tea. It is on kitchenware, furniture, washing machines and a host of other products that, believe it or not, pensioners still need to use. Therefore, it hits them and, believe me, it hurts them. The €7 increase is pathetic. If the Government that calls so frequently for Deputy Bruton to produce proposals had actually listened to them, it could have afforded a little bit more and that would have made a huge difference.

In a debate in the House last week on energy poverty, promises galore were made that all problems would be addressed. We know 227,000 households experience energy poverty. From June 2000 to September 2008 electricity prices have increased by 134%. We have among the highest energy prices in the European Union. There was a recent rise of 17.5% in electricity costs and a 20% rise in gas prices. The cost of home heating oil has risen dramatically, and further electricity and gas price increases are expected for January 2009. Higher food and fuel prices are expected to continue to be above the general inflation rate of 4.3%. Anyone listening last week would have thought fuel, insulation, central heating, better windows and doors were all on the way. We were told the Government had a plan, an interdepartmental group had been set up and meetings were taking place.

I received a response to a freedom of information request from the Department of Social and Family Affairs to the effect: "I see there's an FOI request in from Olwyn Enright re contact between our Minister and the Minister for CER re fuel poverty in the last 12 months. The papers re the inter-depart group are all we'd have really". Those papers consist of six pages, including two annexes outlining the current position, but nothing about how to address the issue unless it is all contained in the four lines that are blackened out, which I doubt.

While welcome, the increase in the home energy savings scheme which has been allocated is four times more than the warmer homes scheme. That shows again that those most in need have not been positively targeted. How many houses will realistically be insulated with €5 million? How exactly is it to be supplemented by funds from industry? Why has the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Ryan, chosen a scheme that targets the vulnerable as the one to be dependent on dig-outs from industry?

People should know about the cynical nature in which energy poverty is being addressed. We all know about the Government's love of press conferences and soft focus interviews. So much so that this ethos now pervades among some officials. E-mails back and forth from Department of Social and Family Affairs officials suggest "a softer ministerial announcement — might take the form of a visit to someone who has had their house insulated etc." That shows the way the issue is being addressed and it reflects poorly on both Ministers. It will probably be difficult to find somebody who has had his or her house insulated, especially in certain parts of the country.

A total of 250,000 people are currently on the live register and the figure is growing. More than 300,000 people are expected to be on the dole by the end of 2009. I suppose there should be some relief that the Minister, Deputy Hanafin, finally realises there is a problem. When the matter was debated in the Dáil only last May she told Opposition Deputies, in particular Deputy Penrose, that the Opposition was being "a little bit dramatic" about the live register figures. It took until now for the Government to accept there is a problem, but no solutions have been offered for the unemployed.

Last week Fine Gael outlined our tough but fair budget proposals that would get the economy back on track. Our proposals addressed the underlying weaknesses in the economy as well as providing scope for positive things to be done for those most in need. For a start, jobseeker's allowance should have been increased by at least €9. The same arguments I made for pensioners apply. The weak and vulnerable have been made scapegoats for Fianna Fáil's failure to manage the public purse. The Minister, Deputy Hanafin, has attempted to disguise her cuts for people on jobseeker's allowance. Let us be perfectly clear that the changes proposed have nothing to do with ending a dependency culture and everything to do with making cuts. It is a reaction to a gaping hole in the public finances and it will savagely alter the lives of many vulnerable people. The Minister hopes people will not sign on the live register because they will fail the means test or do not have enough contributions as that would massage the figures and keep the unemployment figures down. The question she has failed to ask herself, and that she obviously failed to ask the Minister for Finance, is "what is the alternative for these people?" Her heartless, cold, and clearly calculating approach, leaves these people with absolutely zero — no income, no options, probably no home, no bed, nothing. It is not about ending a dependency culture, it is about ending any real type of life for those people. It is offering them a life on the street, or in shelters, effectively offering them nothing.

We have seen no overall plan, just blanket cuts thinly disguised. Where is the plan for lone parents that got the Minister front page headlines last summer? Where is her commitment to supporting family, as she said herself, not just in the more disadvantaged areas, as has been the case in the past, but the family generally? Her statement utterly contradicts what the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, said yesterday. Either way, she has slashed families.

What if a family relies on illness benefit? A €10 increase in the family income supplement threshold would not be of any help to those people. What about the young person who has left school because of a disability, perhaps because disability made school impossible, or because they could not get the help they needed from the Department of Education and Science? The Minister does not want that person depending on her. So she cut €200 per week from them and instead gave their parents €300 per month. She need not worry because the vulnerable know well they cannot depend on her. After yesterday, they know they cannot depend on anybody on that side of the House.

Where is the overall plan? No homework has been done on the Minister's proposals yesterday. That reminds me of the announcement on the over-70s medical card. No homework was done, figures were wrong and now we are rowing back on it. Decentralisation was based on a plan drawn up on the back of an envelope. Again, no homework was done. A total of 53 centres was announced. That programme was slashed yesterday. No homework was done on the early child care supplement that was affected yesterday also. What alternative does the Minister propose for those people?

There are no specific plans to help the unemployed. We will obviously be told again about the famous 50 facilitators who will do God knows what. The 50 facilitators were the subject of two separate press releases last summer. In August each facilitator was to look after 3,600 lone-parent families. By September, the same 50 people were also going to work on a one-to-one basis — this was in a statement — with 235,000 unemployed people. The Minister, Deputy Coughlan, suggested that each facilitator was going to work on a one-to-one basis with 8,000 people, which is impossible. This is the Minister's plan for the unemployed, although she will probably tell us that FÁS will work on the problem as well. However, the numbers assigned to it are insignificant compared to the scale of the problem. Instead, the criteria to qualify for the back-to-education allowance should have been changed. Candidates aspiring to third level education have to be on social welfare for one year. The Minister, Deputy Coughlan, claims she wanted to tackle the problem of people on long-term unemployment becoming dependent on benefit. However, when those people try to stand up for themselves and take the opportunity to go to third level, they are told they must first draw the dole for a year and only then they may be allowed. This is creating a dependency culture and it is an utter contradiction of what the Minister said. We should have specific measures to minimise time for these people so they can get this payment.

The Minister was asked a question on the mortgage interest supplement at a press conference yesterday which she was not able to answer. Every one in the House will be dealing with this problem again and again as people lose their jobs. Many people are unable to make their mortgage repayments and there should have been an increase in the supplement to facilitate such people. The Department of Finance must examine how the scheme is administered as people are being refused credit on the basis that their mortgage is too high and for various other reasons outlined last week. Such people must manage the mortgage they have. This is the troubled position they are in and they need help.

The early childhood supplement, announced in December 2005, was intended to help parents meet the cost of child care in Ireland because it was so expensive. There was no homework done and the Government was unaware of the implications of this measure. The fact that the payment was linked to child benefit meant it was available for children not living in Ireland. Now, every one has a cut of six months, but there will still be money leaving the country to pay for child care in other countries where it is not as expensive. That money probably will not be used for child care. This is another example of poor planning and governance which leads to serious waste.

The blanket 1% levy represents the most inadequate change of all in the budget. It hits every worker in the country. It makes me laugh that the Government boasted, during budget debates in the past few years, about finally getting people on low incomes above the minimum wage. What happened then? The Government side of the House stood up, clapped and gave a standing ovation to the Minister for Finance. Yesterday, the very same people were put back into the tax net. What did those Deputies do? They all stood up, clapped and applauded again. This is the mentality with which we must deal. Every worker in the country is now paying tax again to pay for the mistakes and waste of the Government. It reminds me of the song, "The Wild Rover". The Government enjoyed the good times, spent all the money and is now asking vulnerable people in the country to pay for its recklessness. The Government hopes the people will believe that it will not blow it this time, but the people will not believe it.

See this speech in context