According to this morning's newspapers the Minister for Finance will go into the budget with a surplus of €2 billion. I raise this in the context of the savage 16 cuts in social welfare introduced by the previous Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Ms Coughlan. One of the cuts was meaner, more hurtful and caused more damage and hardship than another. The cuts meant no rent supplement for six months, abolition of the dietary allowance, effective abolition of the back to education allowance and several others.

Has the Taoiseach looked at the submissions from organisations such as the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and Threshold. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul, for example, says in its submission to the Minister for Finance that calls seeking help from the society have soared by more than 60% in the past year and that more than a quarter of a million households are receiving assistance from the charity. There are 70,000 Irish children in consistent poverty. The society's vice-president says the figure represents 70,000 children without a warm meal every day or a second pair of shoes. This is the situation in one of the wealthiest economies in the western world.

How can the Taoiseach justify cuts to make such small savings as €58 million against the hardship caused? The Minister for Social and Family Affairs made no attempt to defend last year's cuts or to argue for them. She said they were imposed on her by the Department of Finance. Last year's cuts of €58 million were entirely provoked by the Government's profligacy in order to win the general election of the previous year. Whatever justification there was last year, the Minister for Finance now has a surplus of €2 billion and there is no justification this year. Will the Taoiseach tell those organisations which advocate the cause of the poor that, in the circumstances I have described, he will reverse the cuts in full when the budget is announced?

Some of the issues raised are not factual but I will not spend too much time correcting the Deputy. The dietary allowance was not abolished last year. Rent allowance was not abolished.

I did not say it was abolished. The Taoiseach should answer my question.

Changes were introduced, in consultation with the social partners, to work with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to provide more permanent solutions to the accommodation needs of people.

We agree with the Deputy. His own county councillors were involved in the decision.

Last year's budget included an increase in social welfare spending of approximately €650 million. There were areas where the Minister for Finance and his Department believed controls were needed. The Government made changes in some of the measures during the year because submissions were made, as they have been this year. The Society of St. Vincent de Paul and other organisations that deal with those who are less well off have made pre-budget submissions and those submissions are being examined in the context of the Book of Estimates. The social welfare package is normally put together in the context of the budget.

The Deputy would like to give the impression that all is bad. We have lifted 200,000 out of poverty. That is because jobs have been created. There have been major increases in direct support for poorer families and communities. We have reduced poverty to historic levels, measured by all criteria by all of the agencies mentioned by Deputy Rabbitte. We have raised the lowest social welfare rates by 63%, excluding this year. Consistent poverty has been reduced by two thirds, from 15% to 5%, and we have implemented the largest series of social welfare and child benefits ever. Child benefit has more than trebled. Long-term unemployment is now 1.4%.

Nevertheless, I am conscious that there are those who require welfare and to whom it is extremely important. That is why, year in and year out, we try to maximise the proportion we can give to them. That is being examined again this year. I am sure the Minister for Finance will do all he can within the resources, which are better than last year. Last year, €650 million was given to social welfare. There was not a cutback of €58 million. This year we must look at those areas again to see how we can maximise support for people in need. We will continue to support community and voluntary activity, local projects and the other initiatives suggested by many organisations.

The Government has axed CE schemes.

Nothing I said was inaccurate. I said the rent supplement was abolished for the first six months. A woman, for example, fleeing domestic violence——

That is inaccurate.

Can the big brother stay out of this?

The Minister of State should build a few houses.

It would have helped women fleeing from domestic violence who have to go to refuges if Deputy Noel Ahern had managed to produce more than 315 social houses since he became Minister of State. The dietary allowance is being phased out over the years. I said it was effectively abolished.

How is it that savings of €58 million had to be extracted from the poor when tax reliefs were given to the wealthiest in our society? How can the Taoiseach justify that? The Minister at the time did not seek to justify the cuts. The figures from the Society of St. Vincent de Paul are frightening. There are now 200% more people using the society's help line than there were two years ago. The president of the society says the greatest increase in people seeking assistance has been among those working in low paid jobs. Their jobs are so badly paid that they cannot make ends meet and have now become the working poor.

These are the figures and there is no need for them in the relative state of health of the economy. I am asking whether the Taoiseach will reverse these cuts.

I have to correct Deputy Rabbitte again, although I know that irritates him. As regards the rent allowance issue, it was not the case that people who were living in hostels——

I never mentioned hostels in my entire contribution.

The Deputy did.

I referred to women fleeing domestic violence.

Please allow the Taoiseach to reply without interruption.

Yes. They were exempt.

They were exempt.

Those categories were exempt. There were six areas of exemption. I am sure the Deputy knows the rules but if he keeps misrepresenting them I will have to keep correcting him. There were six areas of exemption that the former Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Coughlan, introduced.

Kicking and screaming.

Last year, the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, introduced very good schemes. She made some changes to them——

They were cuts.

——but they were very good schemes and very good exemptions. The Government is only too well aware of the situation and that is why every year we have been in Government we have given substantial increases, higher than have ever been granted before. I will not go back over the history of the figures but we are continuing to give those increases. We are conscious of the areas of child benefit and long-term assistance. Not too many years ago, I recall having to fight hard to introduce a minimum wage against the wishes of those who are now in Opposition but were then in Government who did not agree with the idea of a minimum wage. We have the highest minimum wage in Europe and the highest level of it untaxed. We will continue to try to improve on that. While there are people in need, the Government is well qualified to assist them and we will continue to do so.

Look at the track record.

Cuts of €58 million.