Dan Boyle (Green Party)

In debating the Social Welfare Bill, we need to consider the scale of the moneys involved - €22 billion. Even allowing for the adjustments provided for in the Bill, we are talking about a level of spending that is over 40% of the total spending of the State each year. That is unsustainable in the medium term. We must also take into account the levels of increases that have happened over the past ten or 12 years. I was surprised to hear that since 1997, the rate of growth in social welfare payments has been 117%. If we take into account the underlying rate of inflation over that time, the real value of social welfare payments has increased by 75%.

It is a matter of regret that the Green Party has not been able to implement its policy in the area of social welfare. We believe social welfare payments should be linked to the consumer price index, which would mean the levels of increases would not rise above that. It would also mean that in a period of deflation, the rates of payments would decrease so that the relative purchasing power of the payments would remain the same. Social welfare policy is an area in which we seem to have dug a deeper hole for ourselves in that we have adopted a spend more, tax less policy. Such policies were the policies of all three main political parties in 2007. All three parties said they would spend more money, particularly in the area of social protection, and that they would tax less. If we learn anything from this crisis, it must be that this was the maddest political logic ever. We must make a series of adjustments in various areas, one of which is social welfare. This is the second year running we must make adjustments and the relative decrease is still more or less in line with the deflationary period we have experienced.

That said, there are alternative approaches. The one alternative that does not exist for this or any alternative government is that there can be no cuts in social welfare. I find it hard to understand the Fine Gael argument that there can be cuts in some areas of social welfare, but not in others. We probably need a wider debate as to the relativities of different social welfare payments. Reference has been made to the question of the pension for the blind and disability benefits and to how these relate to other payments. Senator O'Toole made a good contribution on the Order of Business the other day and suggested that one of the ways we could adjust the relativity of such people was to look at forms of secondary benefit that would recognise their particular situation, particularly with regard to guide dogs and the like. That type of creative thinking should be followed by the Department of Social Protection.

However, we have a huge problem in Ireland. While demographically we should be well positioned as we have a replacement birth rate and a large proportion of our population in paid employment, the dependency ratio between those in paid employment and those dependent on social welfare is well out of line with similar competitor countries. We need to readjust this balance and to redress the unacceptable welfare traps that exist in our system. Yesterday, I spoke to an artist who told me he had a period of unemployment last year and that he felt his lifestyle while unemployed was akin to people on incomes of €40,000, taking into account their expenditures in terms of tax and his social welfare payment. That kind of connection is being made. In the wake of the budget decisions, my constituency office was visited by people who outlined how they saw their income declining as a result of the scale of the proposed cuts, but at the same time they revealed a level of disposable income that is higher than that of the person who works in my office, who is a single parent with two children. When we have this type of welfare trap, where someone working in a relatively well paid job with two children attending university has less of a disposable income than someone in similar circumstances on social welfare, it is a difficulty.

We can have valid, political debate in this area, but because of the nature of the problem we are experiencing currently and the need to try and repair our national finances, we are avoiding some of the more important issues of real reform in the area of social protection. There are models we could use. There is some degree of innovation in this Bill, but innovation can only exist to the extent to which circumstances allow it. People must be given alternatives, such as employment or training. I welcome the proposed extension of community employment and social employment options. As someone who lived through the 1980s when we had a combination of different employment schemes, starting with Manpower Ireland and then moving on to AnCO, the youth employment bureau and to what became FÁS, I am aware participating in these schemes can become a soulless activity. I believe community employment should not be structured through any one State agency or Department. There are areas of social and community employment in which all Government agencies are involved, environment, tourism, sport and culture, education and so on. I believe that because of the scale of the budget in the Department of Social Protection, we should look at ways this particular part of the budget could be better managed and directed. The Minister has some experience of doing this from his experience with his previous portfolio in dealing with the rural employment scheme, which shows that we can use a social employment measure in a non-traditional manner, outside of the Department of Social Protection or the Department with responsibility for employment.

The challenges facing us have been listed in the four year plan and we expect other political parties to say how they would tackle further changes in the social protection budget, which remains a huge proportion of the overall budget. Questions must be asked whether we need further cuts in rates or whether pensions can be directly protected. The proposals in this area from Fine Gael are vague even though it has clear policies on jobseeker's payments. If we are to have a real debate on the reforms that need to be introduced, these figures must be put on the table. We cannot use the excuse that we have to tell people what they want to hear in an election environment. Political honesty is needed on these financial decisions. If we are to correct the €15 billion imbalance and make €3 billion or €4 billion adjustments in the budgets that will follow in the coming three or four years, we will have to revisit this area. Until we realise that, we will continue to practice the soundbite politics that has bedevilled the issue and does little to help those in need of social protection.