Cyprian Brady (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)

Yes. Only those who have undergone the experience know how difficult it can be to try to survive on social welfare payments. All Members can do is imagine what must be involved. I worked in employment exchanges for many years during the 1980s and 1990s and I saw at first hand how important welfare is to people. The choice with which the Government is faced is whether it should continue to provide the type of welfare system that will prove adequate to meet people's needs.

I am particularly annoyed by social welfare fraud. Such fraud has been occurring for many years but recent television coverage has highlighted the problem again. In effect, fraud takes money out of the pockets of those who need it most. Any attempt, such as that in the Bill, to crack down on fraud must be welcomed. Every euro saved can be given to those who need it most. It is hoped that in 2010 the anti-fraud provisions in this Bill will lead to €500 million being saved.

During the past ten years, social welfare payments were increased across the board. It must be accepted that when one gives someone something on which they then become dependent, it is extremely difficult to take it back. No one on this side of the House wants welfare payments to be reduced. However, we must also be cognisant of the fact that we will still pay out €21 billion in this area in 2010. It is a difficult choice. By means of this Bill the Minister will, by making reductions no one wants to see being introduced, protect two particularly vulnerable groups, namely, the elderly and children whose families depend on social welfare payments.

The Bill will ensure that those most dependent on social welfare will continue to enjoy what remains one of the highest rates of payment in Europe. For us to sustain that rate of payment, we must manage the income available to the country. When we had the facility to do so in recent years, we managed to increase payments so that people benefited greatly. People should not lose sight of that fact.

The elderly continue to enjoy reasonable pensions and they will retain the additional benefits that go with them, such as those relating to fuel, travel, TV licences, electricity and gas supplies and telephone services. I have first-hand knowledge of how important such benefits are to older people living in my constituency, regardless of whether they have families. The elderly appreciate what has been done for them and several of them have informed me of that fact.

As the Minister pointed out, the main thrust of the budget is to retain as many people as possible in employment during 2010 and to protect those who have lost their jobs. The PRSI incentive scheme for employers contained in the Bill will provide assistance to employers taking on new employees. This will make a major difference and will result in an 8% to 10% saving in respect of the cost for each job created. That is a major incentive for employers to continue to take on new employees.

I welcome the fact that there will not be a change in respect of family resource centres. I am a member of the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs, which has met numerous groups which have highlighted the importance of such centres. The family resource centres play a major role in urban areas and they have a major impact on local communities in rural areas. I welcome the fact that we can continue to fund these centres to ensure that the services they provide on a day-to-day basis will be maintained.

If changes are not made in respect of the amount we spend on social welfare at present, we run the risk of being obliged to make massively savage cuts in the future. The idea behind the budget is to avoid that eventuality. If we do not have money available to make social welfare payments, then people will suffer even more. The point with regard to the changes contained in the budget is that they will reduce the effect of any cuts that have to be made. The average reduction in payments for social welfare recipients under the age of 66 will be 4.1%. In light of the fact that prices in general are falling and that the cost of living has decreased, it makes much more sense to make these modest cuts now rather than waiting and being obliged to drastically cut some payments at a future date. The alternative would certainly do those dependent on social welfare no favours.

Families and individuals in my constituency depend on having access to some of the services and payments provided by the Department of Social and Family Affairs on a daily and weekly basis. The changes being introduced now will ensure that in the future we will be able to sustain, to the best degree possible, social welfare rates of payment.

When young people leave school or college, they require a way forward. That is particularly true in the current climate, when employment is scarce. Young people need an incentive to remain in education, to engage in further training or to reskill. In that context, many courses and back to education opportunities will be provided next year. Such courses are not inexpensive. We must maintain the level of spending in this regard and ensure that choices are available for young people.

Even in the good times a number of graduates chose to go way for a number of years after university. That will continue. If we can encourage people to remain here by providing alternatives for them when they leave second level and continue to third level or pick up new skills, it is a worthwhile investment. Some of the changes made in this aspect of the budget dovetail with the additional training places made available by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. No one welcomes the fact that we must adjust our welfare payments downwards. We are doing it for a reason, which is to sustain payments into the future. That is the only way we can manage to get through this situation.

See this speech in context