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?

This budget takes us out of the bailout programme. When we think back to where we started from and the worries people had about whether the State would be able to continue making social welfare payments and the extent to which it would continue to be able to make old age payments, pay secondary benefits and so on, being able to get out of the bailout programme without cutting basic social welfare rates or the old age pension and while maintaining most of the benefits available to pensioners and people on social welfare is quite an achievement. When people look at the budget, the question that must be asked is not whether this cut or change should have been made. The choice is between what we have done and what Fianna Fáil would have done. The four year plan published by Fianna Fáil prior to the last general election included a figure of €17.9 billion for social spending in 2014. The Government will spend €19.6 billion on social protection measures next year. In other words, if Fianna Fáil was still in power, some €1.7 billion extra would be removed from the social protection budget. I have a question for Deputy Willie O'Dea who is his party's spokesperson on social protection. What measures would he take and what additional cuts would he make in the Social Welfare Bill to get the extra €1.7 billion? If we look, for example, at what we have done in the budget, €1.7 billion would represent approximately eight times the total of the various changes made in this year's budget. Therefore, it is not for Fianna Fáil to get up and raise this or that issue, but to tell the people what additional measures it would take. What additional cuts would it make to pension, social welfare protection and various secondary benefits to reach the figure of €1.7 billion extra in cuts that it stated it would implement in 2014?

The Labour Party is getting excited. To answer the question, I will provide the Tánaiste with a copy of our budget proposals as an alternative to his.

Fiction.

They involve taxing the wealthy, making the wealthy pay more and the poor less. That is what they are about and precisely what the Labour Party should be doing. What the last Government would, should or might have done is history. In the last general election the people gave their verdict on the Government of the day and entrusted the Labour Party and Fine Gael with governance of the country.

Based on their promises.

On behalf of the people who are watching these proceedings and none too impressed with the Tánaiste's aggressive, bullying and hectoring response to any question -----

Will the Deputy, please, put his question?

What cuts in social services would the Deputy make to reach the figure of €1.7 billion?

I have three simple questions. First, does the Tánaiste agree -----

Stay quiet please.

Does the Tánaiste agree the extension-----

Put him out.

I do not need help from Deputy McGrath either.

-----of a lesser rate to young people is a cut? The extension of a lower rate to more people is a cut and those affected by this extension of the lower rate will suffer.

Does the Tánaiste agree that since the Government took office, contrary to the commitments made, there has been a substantial reduction in provision for the elderly through the slashing of the household benefits package-----

Not nearly as much as Fianna Fáil intended to make.

-----and for carers, the vulnerable and the unemployed?

Will the Tánaiste give the House a categoric assurance the cut of €5 million in the subvention to RTE with regard to those who receive free television licences will not result in any diminution of the benefits given to these people from the Department of Social Protection at present?

I can give an assurance the reduction in the payment to RTE will not result in any diminution to people with the free television licence. It is intended-----

Intended is one thing.

-----to move to a household charge for television purposes and people with a free television licence will continue to have a free payment of the new charge. There is absolutely no diminution in this.

With regard to what the Government has done in the social protection budget, the Government has done €1.7 billion less than what Fianna Fáil undertook to do when it was in government. The figures are in its four-year plan.

Is this the Tánaiste's defence? Is this the best the Tánaiste can do?

Not only are the figures in the four-year plan but the way in which it proposed to achieve them is in the four-year plan, and it proposed to achieve them by cutting rates-----

The people are not interested in this. They are interested in what the Government is doing. The Government is in charge.

-----and this includes, I presume, the cutting of old age pensions and other payments. We have now produced a budget which gets us out of the bailout without cutting basic social welfare payments.

Tell that to a 23 or a 24 year old.

No young person who is currently on the reduced rate of payment will have this payment reduced. They will continue to be on the payment they are on. The change we have made to unemployment payments to young people must be seen in the context of what we are doing about the activation of young people into employment and into education and training.

I am sorry but the Government is not doing nearly enough.

It is cutting post-leaving certificate, PLC, courses, increasing the pupil-teacher ratio for PLC courses and making it hard to go to third level.

It is the Government's view the place for young people is at work, in work experience or in education and training. This is the best way for them to get out of unemployment.

The Government has increased registration fees for third level and is putting blocks in the way.

Let me be clear we do not believe any young person should find himself or herself in a situation that he or she goes onto an unemployment payment at the age of 18 and are still on it at the age of 25.

Deputy O'Dea should have his homework done the next time.