Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail)

The use of the term "civil partner" and the fact that a partner's income will be taken into account when the cut takes effect do not make it a major equality initiative. It is wrong to use this argument in defence of cuts for the most vulnerable. Senator David Cullinane made a highly relevant point in this regard. Job seekers were always treated differently from other social welfare recipients because, in theory, they could secure employment, although I accept this theory has been strongly undermined by the high unemployment rate. Carers are treated differently because they cannot go out to work on the grounds that they must look after someone else. Similarly, older people are treated differently because they cannot go out to work. One class of people affected, transitional pensioners, do not have the option of going to work because they would lose their benefit were they do so. Perhaps they are the only ones who should be equated to job seekers.

We have always looked after particularly vulnerable groups through the social welfare system. We have provided carers with a household benefits package which is not available to job seekers. Distinctions have been made during the years because, in theory, at least people of working age can try to get a job. That is the difference and it is wrong to bring benefits of different groups into line because doing so breaches the fundamental principle of fairness.

I accept that my party in government may, on a smaller scale and on one or two occasions, have introduced different entitlements for new claimants. When the measure proposed take effect and people start to notice they are receiving less than their neighbour, there will be uproar and we will hear the type of revolutionary language we are hearing at the meeting taking place in the hotel across the road on the household charge. People will not accept their neighbour having more money simply because he or she entered the system a little earlier. This will be a major challenge for the Government in the next few years. I am not trying to predict what it will or will not do, but it will come under pressure because it is consistently targeting new entrants to the social welfare system. It is not sustainable to continue this approach.