Sean Barrett (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Among the many important points made by the Minister was the one relating to the increase during the boom era to approximately 16% in the number of people in receipt of disability, invalidity or other illness benefits. It appears in retrospect that in an economy in which there is full employment the welfare economy gains. The Minister is trying to correct this problem through the introduction of a welfare system that directs people towards work, rather than permanent welfare payments.

The IMF report of September 2012 states Ireland's spend on social welfare benefits is approximately 29% above the OECD average. It is also 12% higher than the OECD-EU average. The welfare spend more than doubled between 2000 and 2011. People have referred to the meanness of the United Kingdom in terms of some of its welfare benefits. The United Kingdom ponied up 3.8% of the ¤85 billion which was needed to rescue Ireland and we are still borrowing ¤13 billion per annum. We ought to be a little more careful in our comments having received money under a rescue programme from the United Kingdom which we used to pay child benefit at higher levels than are available in the United Kingdom. It must be realised that Ireland remains in dire financial straits. Its presentation in the media abroad as a country which has stinted on social welfare benefits is not borne out by the facts. In terms of how we allocate these benefits, several Senators have raised questions such as why the respite care allowance is not means-tested and child benefit is not included in taxable income or means-tested. There are elements of the Minister's Department which in the past were always keen to have as big a social welfare sector as possible. The opening statements in the report of the Department of Social Protection always referred to the millions of people who were dependent on it. Perhaps they might not do so in the future. We should target our resources at where they are most needed, as echoed throughout this debate.

According to the IMF, our bureaucratic costs as a percentage of national income are among the highest anywhere. There is an entitlement culture, even among those whose incomes are way above average. There is a tax avoidance culture, against which the Minister has written and about which she has spoken. There is also a lobbying culture which operates away from the facts of how we are trying to cope with the operations of the economy at such a difficult time in managing the public finances. There are many items Cabinet Ministers should have addressed before the benefits attacked in the Bill were targeted. For example, the budgets for the Attorney General's office and the office of the Minister for Finance have increased by 11.6% and 16.5%, respectively; the budget for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has increased by 9.2%; the Exchequer pay bill in the Attorney General's office has increased by 12.2% and for the office of the Minister for Finance by 14.3%. Of 40 pay budgets, 21 have increased at a time when we are supposed to be cutting back on public expenditure and directing money to where it is needed.

There is a need for a greater focus in our budgeting on those in greatest need. We need to move away from some of the expenditure items which, by international standards, remain high. The Government must continue the reform package it commenced when it assumed office in the spring of last year. There is a lot more to be done because, as stated by the Minister, we continue to borrow ¤13 billion per annum. Being told that if the Government had a surplus, it could do A, B or C is irrelevant. We do not have a surplus.