Should the Budget serve the needs of our people or simply look after the economy? The question is prompted by last week's forum in which nearly 30 organisations told the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, Mr Dermot Ahern, what they want from the Budget. Mr Ahern has pointed out that the cost of implementing the social welfare aspects of all the submissions he had received came to £1.5 billion, 10 times more than the amount normally available to a Minister in his department at Budget time. But, as the Forum of People with Disabilities pointed out earlier, Government revenues this year are predicted to be more than £1 billion higher than expected at the last Budget.
This is a good example of the tension between the State and the economy. On the one side are those who say that the fruits of our economic success should be put at the disposal of those who are disadvantaged. Conversely, there are those who argue that our healthy economy must not be imperilled by "excessive" demands from the disadvantaged. The Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, appears to be seeking a middle way. He has recently reaffirmed that his Government's commitment to tackling social exclusion is "absolutely sacrosanct". There is encouraging talk of tax credits and other budgetary changes that will be skewed towards lower earners and the disadvantaged. On the other hand, the recent publication of Government figures which indicate that a £1 per week rise in social welfare costs £1 million a week to implement appears to reflect a different scale of priorities. Indeed, much of our present economic success was achieved by restraining spending on social services. For many years the annual rise in social welfare payments was held to the rate of inflation.
Nobody is arguing that we should endanger our economic success by spending wildly on social services. Few would argue that all the demands made at last week's forum must be met immediately. But if we do not make serious inroads into poverty in this State, at a time when the economy is booming, when will we do it? Let us look at it another way: if two major sections of society - the haves and the have-nots - continue to drift apart, to the extent that even more alienation arises than we have now, won't the quality of life for all of us decline? And won't this be a worse place to live in, whatever the health of the economy?
There is also this issue: is it satisfactory to know that all will be well while we are "economically active" but that if we should find ourselves in need - as carers, for instance, - then the economy will turn its back on us? If we really want to live in a State which uses its economy to take reasonable care of its citizens, then we must support the calls of the organisations at last week's forum to have their demands taken seriously. Nobody expects the Government to find £1.5 billion for the implementation of all the proposals made at the forum. But our economy is doing extraordinarily well - and we are entitled to expect that the Government will give a real priority to the poverty issue and to the needs of the disadvantaged.