VINCENT BROWNE says that injustice and inequality still exist in 1997; that nothing has changed as a result of Democratic Left being in government; that we have not even increased, social welfare rates by as much as the FF-PD government did between 1989 and 1992; and that as a result, poverty has actually worsened.

He is wrong. Not even Vincent Browne could believe that poverty, injustice and inequality could be abolished in just over two years. But as an influential commentator, he could look more carefully at the facts. And my record in office.

First, on the question of the weekly social welfare rates: the real increases, over the last three budgets, have been higher than the increases given by the FF-PD government. Not lower, as Vincent Browne stated.

Secondly, Vincent Browne quotes me as dismissing, in 1991, a FF-PD promise to achieve the rates recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare by 1993, as a "confidence trick". But I was right. They didn't keep that promise.

However, DL in government is fully committed to reaching that target and we have brought all except two of the payments to at least 98 per cent of the recommended rate. And, as agreed with the social partners, all will reach or exceed 100 per cent in two years' time.

The third and most important point about the weekly social welfare rates - which Vincent Browne is missing entirely - is that they are not the full story. They are only part of the supports now provided by my Department. Focusing narrowly on the weekly rates means missing the wider picture. And that picture has been changed dramatically by me in the last two years.

Traditionally, about 70 per cent of each year's social welfare budget was spent on increasing the weekly payments. The effect, as I said in opposition and still say, was to protect the status quo against inflation and perhaps improve it slightly.

In my first budget, in 1995, I demolished convention by devoting nearly 60 per cent of the entire extra allocation - which at £212 million was then the highest ever - to family payments.

Most of that extra money went on the unprecedented £7 increase in Child Benefit. It was a radical redistribution of resources. Households with children are at greatest risk of poverty and Child Benefit is the best way of targeting resources to such families.

When the FF-PD government fell in 1992, Child Benefit for a five-child family was £93.20 a month. After this year's increase, it will be nearly double that amount, at £177. A significant difference.

When I became Minister for Social Welfare, less than 1 per cent of the Department's budget was spent on employment support services. This year's figure is 10 per cent.

What DL has been doing, with our partners in government, is tackling poverty and inequality in ways that go beyond the tradition of simply increasing social welfare payments. While maintaining the welfare objectives of providing income support, we have added important, new, pro-family, pro-employment and anti-poverty dimensions to the system.

We initiated the development of a National Anti-Poverty Strategy which involves all Government Departments addressing poverty and social exclusion. We set up a Commission on the Family to consider better ways of supporting families.

Crucially, also, social welfare now provides a real springboard into employment. It prepares unemployed people by supporting them during second-chance education and training. It supplements the income of low-paid workers, via the radically improved Family Income Supplement. The highly-successful Back-to-Work Allowance has been expanded by us and we have extended this scheme to include people with disabilities. We have eased or removed many of the poverty and unemployment traps once confronting people on social welfare.

DL, with our partners in Government, has contributed to the development of integrated tax, welfare and employment policies which have resulted in high growth, 100,000 net new jobs, a steady reduction in unemployment and a successful economy providing jobs for well-qualified young people and returning emigrants. Meanwhile, we have kept the focus on sharing the fruits of this prosperity with those who have been unable to benefit.

As Minister for Social Welfare, I have been particularly concerned to address the needs of pensioners, both current and future. The basic level of pension provision, plus the various add-ons, plus the non-monetary supports (such as the "free schemes") have all been improved substantially, as has the tax regime for pensioners. And the Pensions Policy Initiative, introduced by me and currently ongoing, is designed to ensure that appropriate policies are pursued. Carers have also been given special attention by this Government, in recognition of their vital but generally undervalued role.

I don't doubt that if I had stuck to the traditional role of social welfare Ministers and just increased the rates each year, Vincent Browne would now be castigating me for not "changing the system" and not "making any difference".

FOR space reasons, I can't list 4 out all the other areas in which DL in Government has made a difference. The £260 million in equal treatment arrears to married women - denied for a decade by previous governments. The abolition of water charges - which has improved the position of thousands of low-income households in towns, cities and villages, by £2-3 -a week. The action on social housing, accommodation for the travelling, community, homelessness, urban renewal - all by a DL Minister. The new approach to tackling the drugs crisis. The Consumer Credit Act, the Credit Union Bill, the first White Paper on Science and Technology, saving the price of the pint.

DL went into Government in order to make a difference. And we have. Our record is a good one. We've no illusions about eliminating poverty and inequality in the space of two years; nor do we claim a monopoly on such concerns. But these have been priorities for us and, together with our partners in Government, we have made major progress on them. This was because, for the first time, poverty and inequality were high priorities on a Government agenda.

As with our partners in Government, we could not have made these achievements on our own. One of the distinctive features of this coalition is that it works well and each of its components have contributed to ensuring this.

Without a working partnership of this kind, this Government could not have delivered on the key priorities which each of us had at the outset, as well as on the various shared objectives that we had in common. But we have. How about some credit where credit is due, Vincent?