A couple of weeks ago I mentioned here that for any parliamentarian it was a pleasure to witness Dermot Ahern bring his Social Welfare Bill through the Dail. Members on all sides of the House appreciated that here was a Minister who had fought tooth and nail to put social, community and family affairs centre stage, and won. There really was no stopping him.

The courteous Charlie Flanagan, the Fine Gael spokesman on Enterprise and Employment, who thinks my offerings here from time to time are too propagandist, will have my life for making the point that the Opposition was placed in the position of voting against a £10 weekly increase in old-age pension and a £25 increase in child benefit.

A family with three children who are currently getting £141 a month on child benefit will receive £221 a month (£25 for the first two children and £30 for subsequent children) from June thanks to this Bill. I would not like my whip to march me into the Dail to vote against such improvements.

In the past, however, I do admit to having marched through the division lobbies in the party interest against my better judgment. (A combination of the whipping system and fear perhaps!) Those actually whipped into verbal opposition in the chamber of the Dail meekly faced the oratorical wrath of the confident Louth man.

In the run-up to the last Budget, the Fianna Fail parliamentary party held three special meetings specifically over budgetary policy. There was a clear desire, expressed very strongly at times, to make a radical, progressive change. Yesterday's introduction of unprecedented rises in social welfare benefits for the neediest in our community is such a progressive move.

For the majority of Irish Times readers, those most insulated from the needs and experiences of social welfare recipients, yesterday's introduction of lower tax rates on wages was, I suspect, the most welcome aspect of the recent Budget.

These lower taxes will not result in less money being directed to health, education or social welfare. As the tax burden has decreased and competitiveness has increased, investment, employment and spending have all risen and the tax intake in turn has increased.

The Government has used this opportunity to increase greatly social inclusion and effect real change on the social front.

The tax cuts which came into effect yesterday will take 133,000 low-paid workers out of the tax rate altogether. A further 107,000 will be taken out of the top rate of tax. Behind the numbers, the fact remains - these measures put more money in the pockets of the needy and the lower-paid.

Despite the party political whips and the usual spillage of vitriol, I know all politicians want a more equal, just society. This year about £2.1 billion will be spent on social inclusion, on narrowing the gap between rich and poor, helping people on to their feet and into work and education.

Only five years ago we were spending four times less on social inclusion. There is a new mindset evident today, with Government and society calling for more than simply a good economy. There is a growing desire and need for community.

An extra £10 a week for old-age pensioners won't bring that about, of course. But just remember that it was only six years ago that the old-age pension increase was just £1.80, more than five times less than today. There has been a change in attitude. Not enough of a change, but the beginnings at least. Compared to the neglect of the mid-1990s, however, when we had the money to increase social spend but decided not to, we have moved a considerable distance.

THERE remain, of course, many people reading this newspaper today, who are opposing the setting-up of halting sites, drug rehabilitation units and countless other socially necessary institutions across the State. It would be nice to believe that as they collect their next pay cheque and notice the considerable additional amounts there due to yesterday's tax reductions, they might reconsider their opposition to social progress.

Not that they should be bought off, but they might understand that the State's wealth is being shared now, and that their challenge to development is out of kilter with the needs of society. This mefein approach has more to do with the gaudy mid-1990s than today.

By contrast, social inclusion today has moved centre-stage. That does not mean, of course, that our huge social problems are vanishing overnight. It simply means there is a real awareness now and a desire, and the policies, to tackle these problems.

Throughout our present travails over foot-and-mouth disease, we have seen the entire nation pull together. There has been a palpable sense of urban and rural unity. Phrases like "the national interest" have reappeared with meaning, after at least a decade of dormancy.

Many have become better off and in the national interest we must now ensure that our wealthy economy brings about an equal and just society.

Lastly, it was great during the week to hear the farming organisations, North and South, talk about an all-island approach to certain aspects of farming, in their joint and common interest.