I would like to raise with the Taoiseach the consequences of last Wednesday's budget. Bearing in mind that the hype and big discussion are over, the consequences are becoming evident for a great many people. Politicians stated in the House that, in accepting the fact that there was a requirement to secure a reduction in current spending of approximately €4 billion, there should be a sense of fairness in the budget. I want to address this very issue.

Fine Gael has tabled a motion for Private Members' time dealing with the consequences for the disabled, blind and carers who cannot work because of their circumstances. The contacts made with me as a politician over the past weekend and the graphic descriptions given of the circumstances that apply in respect of these three categories suggest clearly that this budget is demonstrably unfair and mean. Let me outline why.

The pension for the blind is means tested. If a person who is blind has any means or is married to a person of means, he or she cannot draw the pension. Those who do qualify apply for the old age pension when they reach the qualifying age because it is of a higher value. There are only 1,500 people in this category nationally, yet the Minister has taken €8.60 off them every week. They cannot work and they have a very strict means test applied to them.

Carers provide over 3 million hours of care every year because of their love of kith and kin. Let me tell the House about Tom from Arklow, whose case is public. He looks after his loved one because she has had multiple sclerosis for 16 years. Tom was an IT consultant earning €400 per day, or €2,000 per week, and is now a full-time carer. The conditions specify that the care must be full-time. Tom's allowance has been cut by €8.60. His loved one is in a wheelchair. The house must be heated because she cannot move around, thus incurring a higher cost than would normally be the case. The carbon tax will result in their paying extra for travel. The woman's dietary requirements are such that the cost of living in the house is higher than normal.

The same applies to all the disabled. The Government, in seeking cuts in the order of €4 billion, has actually aimed the political gun at the most vulnerable, including the blind, carers and the disabled. The Taoiseach and I have been in houses and have seen people with dementia and incontinence and we have noted the pressure on those who look after these people on a full-time basis. These carers save the State an average of €40,000 each, which amounts to hundreds of millions of euro every year, yet the response of the Government has been to take €8.60 off each of them. It has pumped billions of euro into a black hole of banks and has allowed people with pensions of more than €100,000 to walk away untouched.

There can be nothing——

Deputy Kenny, could we have a question please?

——in our so-called Christian country that is as unfair as what I saw last Wednesday for the carers, the disabled and the blind.

Every Minister with any gumption should be ashamed to walk up those steps to vote against the motion against these measures. I ask the Taoiseach not to divide the House tomorrow on an issue that is as sensitive as this, where there are defined numbers and cases. Many of those affected are in their houses having to put up with the cruel consequences of this Government cut. With so many other options available, will the Taoiseach tell us now that he will reverse these cuts?

The Government had to consider how we could have a sustainable social welfare system going forward against the fact that the revenues coming into the Exchequer are at the same level that they were six years ago in 2003. In the meantime, when resources allowed, there were, rightly, significant increases way beyond the cost of living increases for social welfare recipients. The Government is quite proud of what it achieved during those years.

That was from the generosity of his heart.

In the pre-budget outlook, the Government had to take a position on social welfare spending reductions, a spend of over €22 billion against just €32 billion coming into the coffers. That is not a sustainable position.

The rate of savings identified meant all areas of expenditure had to be examined, including social welfare. The Government sought to carefully consider the matter and ensure that the level of reduction or contribution from various blocs of public expenditure was least in the social welfare area.

That being said, I recognise that any reduction in social welfare rates is a disappointment to their recipients. We made this decision out of the necessity of ensuring that we have a social welfare code going into the future which we can sustain. On the one hand, we cannot agree that a €4 billion adjustment needs to be made while, on the other, suggest there are easier ways for it to be found. It is a difficult exercise but one which had to be undertaken by the Government in a considered way.

While there has been a cut on average of €8.30 on all working payments for those under 66 years, excluding dependants of pensioners over 66 years, the cost of living is back at February 2007 levels. Welfare payments, even after these cuts, will still be at 2008 levels. At 2003 revenue levels, social welfare rates would have been 50% lower than they are today.

The issue is how savings in the social welfare code can be ensured. We all understand the cuts affect recipients but they have been introduced in such a way as to protect them to the greatest extent possible. There has been a reduction in the cost of living. The increase of 3% in welfare rates in the 2009 budget means there is a net effect of 1.1% considering the consumer price index and the cost of living impact on welfare recipients.

Others have been protected such as the 475,000 old age pensioners and the 430,000 children in low-income or welfare-dependent families. We had to focus the savings wherever we could. Unfortunately, it was not possible to construct a budget without a contribution from the social welfare budget. We had to make those decisions. That the cost of living came down this year helped us maintain people's living standards despite the cuts made.

I am disappointed to hear such a response from the Taoiseach. This is not the Deputy Cowen I knew.

He has changed.

The Deputy Cowen I knew had a genuine feeling for the voiceless, for those with no trade union, for those with nobody to represent them except their associations and public representatives.

The Taoiseach spoke about the social welfare system going forward, the €22 billion in social welfare expenditure, the pre-budget outlook and the Government's understanding that a contribution had to be made. The cost of excluding carers, the disabled and the blind is €108 million.

That is nothing.

In my contribution, I was careful to point out the categories of carers, the disabled and the blind. I did not mention pensioners or children.

Could we have a question please?

In the Fine Gael alternative proposals, it would have been possible to exclude all categories. Regarding the point of going forward, as the Taoiseach said, and it causes people trouble, budgets are always about choices. My contention is the Taoiseach has made a very bad choice. For example, had the Government chosen to accept more of the McCarthy report's recommendations on the elimination of quangos, it would have saved €175 million. By doing so, the Government could have left untouched the carer's allowance for Tom, looking after his wheelchair bound wife in Arklow. By doing so, it would not have had to take €8.30 off the 1,500 recipients of the blind person's allowance, all of whom are means tested anyway.

Deputy Kenny, this a serious overrun in the time allowed.

There was an easier way to find these moneys when the Taoiseach claims there was not. As Fine Gael has pointed out for the past two and a half years, it could have easily been done with the elimination of quango after quango. The Taoiseach was informed in writing this would save €175 million.

If the Taoiseach proceeds down this line against this motion this evening and tomorrow, he will divide the public representatives of all the people on the issue of social welfare allowances to carers, the disabled and the blind.

Could we have a question, Deputy Kenny, please?

Every Government Member who walks up those steps tomorrow during the division on the motion should be ashamed of what they have taken from those who have no voice, no trade union and no one to come to this House to argue for their case every day.

They are ashamed.

There is an easier and better way. Several opinions are open to the Taoiseach to allow him not reduce allowances to carers, the disabled and the blind.

What about the amount carers save for the State because of love of kith and kin? The message sent out to them is that they do not count and neither does their work. It is not good enough to say we gave them more in times of plenty.

Could we have a question, Deputy Kenny, please?

Of course the Government gave them, rightly, more and it was appreciated. However, he cannot take it from them now, in such a short time before Christmas.

Hear, hear.

These are the people who have no voice with no one to speak for them except for the few who do in here. Tomorrow, the Government will have an opportunity to vote on this motion. The Taoiseach must reverse these cuts. There is another way he can find €108 million in cuts and not take €8.30 a week off carers, the disabled and the blind. If he does it before Christmas, everyone will say the Taoiseach has done the right thing at last.

Hear, hear.

It is easy for the Leader of the Opposition to suggest alternative ways to find this, that and the other.

Why does the Government not take it off the rich?

It is the Government's responsibility to——

Get rid of the quangos.

Why not take it off the rich people?

Get rid of the quangos.

Deputy Sheehan, the Taoiseach without interruption.

I listened to the Deputy's party leader in silence.

Fine Gael gave the Taoiseach an option but he does not want to listen to anyone.

Will the Deputy listen in silence?

Deputy McEntee, allow the Taoiseach without interruption.

It is easy for the Leader of the Opposition to suggest continually that there are easier ways of finding money. The €4 billion that we recalled simply stabilises the deficit. We still have an Exchequer borrowing requirement this year of €18.8 billion.

The figure in this case is just €108 million.

We still have to reduce our indebtedness over time. We must recognise and confront that reality in the best way we possibly can. While acknowledging one is open to criticism when one touches a social welfare rate at any time, the best prospect of maintaining the levels of support the Government built up over the years must be sought. The value of what is being provided for people is €10 ahead in terms of what they were getting in 2007 and the cost of living at that time.

The Taoiseach is a magician.

These are the facts.

They are not.

They are, of course, difficult facts. No one is suggesting it is easy. It is not easy for any Government. I am sure it was not easy for the Government of which the Deputy was a member which gave only €1.50 per week extra to pensioners. I am sure that was a difficult decision and that that Government was not in a position to give any more.

At least we did not cut it.

Fianna Fáil has been in power for 12 years.

It was better than taking money from them.

We debated the issue at which time I am sure the Government was criticised for its decision. The fact is we are in a new economic situation. We are in a situation where we have to deal with the issues.

The Government is not doing anything about it.

The Government caused it.

Deputy McCormack.

It is not a sustainable position to suggest that we can have a €22 billion social welfare bill next year and have receipts coming into the Exchequer of €32 billion and then look after public service pay issues, programmes, capital programmes and everything else.

Advisers and everything else.

It is not a sustainable position. Therefore, the reduction in social welfare that had to be contemplated and acted upon by Government,——

The Taoiseach was in charge.

——reluctant though we were, was necessary. It was necessary and done in the best possible way.

It was cowardly. The Government hit the poor.

I confirm that the respite care grant of €1,700 per annum was not affected nor was the half rate carer's allowance, which is an innovation introduced some years ago.

I accept that this is not an easy position for any Government to be in. The decision was necessary.

No, it was not; that is a lie.

It was part of the overall €4 billion requirement.

Deputies please.

It is simply part of a budgetary process that will have to continue in coming years so that we can get this country back to solvency——

It was brought about by bad government.

Ask Deputy Gogarty.

——and to do so in a way that is as fair as possible to everyone.

Deputy Durkan, please.

The most unfair and callous thing one could do would be to suggest that a no change policy could be sustained into the future. That is not possible. It is better to be frank and candid about all areas of expenditure.

Hear, hear.

The Government did the most cowardly thing; it hit the weakest.

Be honest about it.

The Government's own backbenchers do not agree with it.

I call Deputy Gilmore and ask Members to allow him ask his question without interruption, please.