THE Conference of Religious of Ireland (CORI), which represents the country's religious orders, has strongly criticised the Government for a Budget in which "most of the, resources will continue to go to the, better off in Irish society"
CORI's Justice Office, in a, 26 page critique of Tuesday's Budget provisions, acknowledged "the sincere efforts Government made to target the benefits of a growing economy towards poor and unemployed people
It welcomed "the child benefit increases, the positive discrimination in favour of the long term unemployed and the reduction in the Exchequer Borrowing Requirement to 2 per cent of GNP".
CORI noted, however, that since coming to power the Government had "presided over a widening in the poverty gap", with a long term unemployed couple now £1,500 less well off in comparison to a couple bringing in £40,000.
"Before Budget 96 wealth was growing in Ireland, the national cake was expanding at a faster rate than was the case for years and the economy was in a very healthy state. Yet poverty was the core reality of a great many people's lives. Unemployment was at a very high level. Poverty and unemployment combined to produce a situation of social exclusion for up to one third of Ireland's population.
"After Budget 96 the economy, the national cake, Ireland's wealth will continue to grow. But a major proportion of the growth will go to the already better off."
The CORI document recalled that 10 years ago the report of the Commission on Social Welfare had concluded that a single person needed £68.50 a week and a couple £110 to provide "a minimally adequate standard of living" (in 1996 terms).
"Ten years later most social welfare rates are below this level, while many low paid employees live in households with income equivalents below this very low poverty line.
"In the past 10 years the national cake has grown by more than 50 per cent. However, large numbers of people continue to live in poverty and the gap between them and the rest of society continues to widen dramatically.
For example, the gap in take home income between a single unemployed person and a single person on the average industrial wage widened in the 1986-95 period by £2,126 a year. In the case of a couple with four children the gap widened by £1,045 a year. (These calculations include family income supplement and children's allowance.)
The higher the income bracket, the more striking the disparity, CORI notes. Thus a single person or four child family on double the average industrial wage are respectively £4,860 and £3,926 better off than their long term unemployed equivalent compared to 1986.
CORI welcomed most of the Budget's initiatives on unemployment. It warned, however, that there were no proposals on the Government's agenda "which are of a sufficient scale to effectively tackle unemployment".
The hugeness of this scale is not always appreciated, CORI added. "If unemployment is to be eliminated by the year 2000 we need a net gain of 412,000 on the present number of jobs available (based on the Labour Force Survey) . .. Budget '96 predicts that jobs will increase by 31,000 in 1996."
CORI reiterated its ideas on such a framework in alternative Budget proposals first put forward last autumn. These included the introduction of a basic income guarantee to ensure an adequate income for everyone the elimination of all unemployment and poverty traps to make it worthwhile for people to take up paid work the reduction of pay roll taxes for employers and a substantial reduction of the Exchequer Borrowing Requirement.
CORI also criticised Mr Quinn for saying that he and the Department of Finance could not comply with all the requests for meetings with those who had made pre budget submissions, because their numbers had increased enormously.
Mr Quinn had said he would be available for "full pre budget discussion" with official representative groups from the social partners. "We noted that the social partners do not include people whose primary role is to represent poor people, unemployed people and women. Does Government intend to rectify this omission?"