Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister, Deputy Hanafin. I apologise as I was unable to attend yesterday's Second Stage debate.

My colleagues have given an overview of our political approach to the legislation. I am the first to acknowledge the scale of the difficulty the Minister faces in trying to put a social welfare budget together. We would be removing ourselves from reality if we did not acknowledge that even in its reduced state, the social welfare and social assistance programme is very good by international standards, especially when we compare it to the system in operation on the other side of the Border and in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Each time I consider the various benefits and allowances it strikes me that we could rationalise the number of allowances and benefits as the social welfare system is cumbersome, administratively difficult and confusing. Generally speaking we are talking about the same level of payments but we have a plethora of options and forms. Let us consider, for example, the reduction in the payment for disabled persons. Constituents who have had accidents at work seek advice on the invalidity pension. When I ask them whether they have applied for disability benefit they do not have any idea what I am talking about. The disability allowance is a valid and valuable payment but it appears to be off the radar as far as most people are concerned. We need to ensure that all people signing on for invalidity or disability benefit are made aware of the existence of the disability allowance, if it would apply in their circumstances.

Senator Healy Eames made the interesting comment that parents do not rear their children to emigrate, with which I very much agree. Neither do parents rear their children to become long-term recipients of social welfare benefits. That would not be the aim or ambition of Irish parents but, sadly, sometimes it transpires to be the reality. In all our social welfare and social assistance schemes, particularly from the jobseeker's perspective and that of young people - this proposed cut will affect young people - we must try to change the balance in the system to ensure there is a strong incentive in the system for people to go to work and to avail of the possibility to obtain training and participate on courses. I am sorry for not having the full details but I received a query at the weekend from a school principal who was unable to get clarification post-budget in regard to the number of extra training places, whether VTOS or otherwise, which the Department of Education and Science said would be available and which the Department of Social and Family Affairs said would not be, or vice versa. Will there be additional training options?

It is fine to reduce jobseeker's payments for young people leaving school but we must give them a training or education option. That is the key to whatever reforms the Minister must bring about. When a young person leaves school, whether at 16, 18 or 21 years of age, the natural extension for those who cannot get a conventional job should not be the old-fashioned social welfare scheme but training, education or alternative options.

The Minister is forced by budgetary constraints to make these reductions. We do not like them; nobody could. Politically, the equation is not balanced in that the training options have not been clearly outlined. Rather than the Minister speaking to her constituents or Members speaking to theirs and giving them the bad news that if they are unemployed on leaving school, their social welfare will be significantly reduced, we really need to be able to paint a clear picture for those young people as to the alternatives. Surely, it is always best for young people to be in training, in education or doing appropriate courses to suit their skills, talents etc.

Every time of economic difficulty brings challenges but it also brings opportunities. There is an acceptance among people that we are where we are economically, although that phrase is out of date, and that the well has run dry. The remaining resources must be spent in a very pro-education and pro-work experience way.

I first became involved in politics in the mid-1980s, as did the Minister, when the country faced grave economic difficulties. Governments then were at the disadvantage that there was not the same public understanding or acceptance. In the mid-1980s, mainly during the Garret FitzGerald Government but probably following on into the late Charles Haughey Governments, there were a number of novel employment, subsidy and training schemes, including youth employment schemes. Agencies, such as FÁS, introduced social employment schemes. Even with limited money, there was a little thinking outside the box and we saw that somewhere between a full-time job and full-time social welfare, there was a middle way, or a third way.

The Minister must concentrate on that over the next six months to give people a reason to be optimistic and to have some degree of hope. We must be able say to young people that they definitely will have a job in Ireland in the near future. We should be able to offer training and education at a limited additional net cost. There is nothing as wasteful as consigning a person to the social welfare system and closing the door on them. Over a number of decades we saw where people became unemployed at 16, 17 or 18 years of age, entered that awful world of long-term unemployment and remained there.

The Minister has a responsibility to ensure a sufficient number of schemes, programmes and options are in place. Will she ask her officials, even though I am sure they will not thank her for advertising schemes which will add to the burden of the State's finances? A significant number of people who are entitled to the disablement gratuity are not in receipt of it because they seem unaware of that scheme's existence.

The Minister must aim high in regard to the use of the money available to her. She served previously in the Department of Education and Science, so she knows the schemes and options available there. It is time to twin the two Departments from a training point of view. There are so many third level and post leaving certificate options that it is a shame that people at 17, 18 and 19 years of age are deciding to sign on for jobseeker's assistance. We should be able to offer those people training courses, work experience, community employment etc. We are going well outside the remit of the section.