Dan Boyle (Green Party)

Other countries among the newer members also have high rates. Part of the difficult we have is the lack of a standard measurement in many European countries and the fact that social welfare is not taken to be a European competence which skews the pitch.

During the debate I heard mention of the budgetary decision to make a lower rate of unemployment payment available to younger workers. A payment being previously higher than it is now will excite political comment and cause controversy. However, a number of reasons exist for this being necessary. We do not have emigration as a safety valve and the call on the public purse is greater than it was during previous periods of economic stress. More importantly — we lack this debate — it can be established as a principle that unemployment payment for younger workers is not a standard payment in terms of not getting into a culture of dependency and a young person's first income being a welfare payment. A lower payment is a form of incentive. We must remember that in comparison to our neighbouring jurisdiction the full rate of unemployment benefit here is three times the level of what is paid in the United Kingdom and even the reduced rate of unemployment benefit for younger people is still twice that level.

If we concentrate on what we pay as welfare and income support for younger workers we miss the wider picture. I accept the Labour Party's motion is framed in a wider sense. It is not about what we pay people in welfare, it is about creating employment opportunities for them and about the training offered to them to avail of such opportunities as and when they arise. In having a more constructive long-term debate on this I ask that we get away from the trite excuses and political charges about emigration and the structure of the welfare system and discuss common approaches to employment creation and the training opportunities that are necessary in the economy.

I accept that there are still deficiencies and gaps in services but there is also an intent to meet many of those inequities and a plan is in place on how we can get there. It is the nature of Opposition to point out how and when the Government does not do this. I believe that as and when economic indicators improve internationally and nationally within the next year we will have put in place and set in motion the environment required for an ongoing reduction of unemployment and youth unemployment in particular of which we will see the benefit towards the end of 2011. On these grounds, I support the Government's amendment to the motion, which states what the Government is doing about this in a proactive and positive sense. It should not be read, as it has been interpreted, as an outright rejection of the motion tabled by the Labour Party.