Dan Boyle (Green Party)

The scale of the social welfare system can be measured by the fact that its current budget is some €21 billion, two thirds of the money we will collect in all taxes next year. The decisions we make, therefore, will have serious consequences. There is no doubt the scale of that budget is justified because many of those relying on social welfare do so on the basis of income maintenance. The deteriorating economic situation means there are ever more people becoming unemployed and their needs must be met, especially in the short term.

We must ask, however, whether the money is being spent effectively, producing the ends desired by those depending on such income. The room for manoeuvre is painfully small. Most social welfare benefits, such as unemployment benefits, pensions, disability payments and payments to lone parents, go directly to people who need them. The amount of discretionary funding available is small in terms of the overall budget.

It has come to a stage now, however, given the scale of spending and the resources available to meet that budget, that we must look at its wider aspects. The extent to which people receive income from social welfare when they have sufficient means themselves means payments from the social welfare budget do not benefit those in need but third parties. The Bill also highlights the extent to which abuse occurs within the system, diverting resources from those who need them.

In that context and in the current difficult situation, these proposals are all that could have been done. The alternatives were unpalatable. One of the social partners indicated that the 3% increase in October could have been rolled back. Even though we are now in a deflationary situation, resulting in a net benefit increase in October of 7% in terms of income, we should not try to take that money back.

An unfortunate but unavoidable decision was made on the Christmas bonus. Even that decision, however, constitutes little more than 1.5% of the overall budget. That shows the impact these changes have had on the overall budget. We all hope that if the programme to address fraud in the system is successful it will open up an avenue by which the Christmas bonus might be partially addressed.

The other decisions were made in the context that if it was not a matter of income maintenance, it had to be examined. The decision on the early child care supplement, one of the more recent decisions, was made in the context that we cannot give out money to everyone, particularly those who have sufficient income, that will not have an impact on the effective spending of resources. The decision to replace it with a guaranteed, targeted preschool place will be a more beneficial use of resources.

The decision to cut the jobseeker's allowance for 18 and 19 year olds seems harsh on the surface but where we are trying to avoid the introduction of a dependency culture in terms of families and communities, it is the right decision. People should not start their working lives with an expectation that payments will be made directly with no incentive to seek whatever work is available.

The other decisions relating to how contributions could be more fairly distributed are right, and in future budgets they must be addressed further. With regard to how we contribute to the social welfare fund, I and my party are of the belief there must be greater equity and greater contribution from those on higher incomes, even if that goes against the principle of the fund in that such individuals are unlikely to benefit directly from it. It is a principle of solidarity and I welcome the moves towards achieving that in this and previous Bills in recent years.

The difficulty is where we go from here and what is likely to happen. I believe it is unlikely, given the current economic situation and deflation figures, that social welfare will have the capacity to increase in the short term. However, there must be clear markers that there are elements of social welfare spending that cannot be affected and that there are people within the social welfare system who should not have a fear that such decisions will be made. The Minister has made those principles a part of her decision making, both in October and in this Bill, in the decisions relating to pensioners and carers, taking account of the impact of ever-growing numbers of unemployed and how the scant resources, which are decreasing, can be distributed over such a huge budget.

In future legislation, particularly relating to unemployment, we must examine the six month and one year periods of unemployment and how people who find themselves in that position can avoid a situation of enforced entropy. We do not wish for a return to the 1980s. I had two periods of three months unemployment and three periods of six months unemployment in the 1980s. It is one of the most soul destroying experiences of a person's life. The responsibility of the Government and Department is to ensure that when people find themselves at these benchmarks, there are opportunities for them to remove themselves from unemployment through incentives to employers to take people on either on a training or employment basis, if necessary using the resources being made available through the jobseeker's allowance to offer such incentives.

The Social Welfare Bill that will follow the December budget will need to consider this, given the scale of the problems facing the country. I am confident the Minister has the resources to deal imaginatively with the decisions that must be made to ensure this difficult period can be made less difficult, if possible.