The social welfare aspects of this year's Budget have an importance which extends far beyond the alleviation of poverty.

Being seen to compensate social welfare recipients for the rise in living costs will be key to Government attempts to save the Partnership for Prosperity and Fairness.

It is not that an inflation-matching rise in social welfare payments will, in itself, shore up the PFP. Workers demanding a boost to their declining purchasing power will hardly drop that demand because the poor have become slightly less poor.

It is more that a failure to be seen to compensate those on social welfare would put the PFP under still more pressure. Such a failure would put a strong weapon indeed at the disposal of the agreement's opponents.

There is a certain sleight of hand about this. Those who demand that people on welfare get more are well aware that, traditionally, this is the least a Budget does.

Compensation for the rise in the cost of living is to be expected. What would really make a difference would be rises over and above the rate of inflation.

A rise of something exceeding 6 per cent could be promoted as compensating for increases in the cost of living. If its implementation is delayed, as usual, until well into next year it might not compensate, but more of that below.

Combat Poverty wants an increase of about 10 per cent or more, that is a minimum increase of £8 a week. The Conference of Religious of Ireland is seeking still more: a minimum increase of about £14 a week.

At the core of the approach of these bodies is something more significant than any single year's increase: a change in the way social welfare payments rise annually. In effect, social welfare is linked to inflation. A rise equal to inflation is the least recipients can expect to get.

But Combat Poverty wants social welfare index-linked to earnings and CORI wants a link to household incomes. Either would mean bigger rises for people on social welfare than they get under an inflation-linked system.

This is not to say rises are always limited to the annual rise in inflation. From time to time, rises exceeding inflation have been granted. But an automatic link to earnings over the years would have left people on welfare - including pensioners and widows - substantially better off.

If the Government or the social partners really want to improve the lot of people on welfare they will move towards linking increases to earnings or household income.

Earlier I mentioned the gap between the time an increase in social welfare is granted and the time it comes into effect. At one stage, social welfare increases took effect from April. Then governments began to save money by pushing the date of implementation further and further into the future. This year's increases took effect from May, cutting the gap to five months after a December Budget. If the social partners really want to make a difference to people on welfare, they will insist this gap be shortened dramatically.

With luck, the poor will benefit from a more than usually generous Budget as the Government seeks to hold the line on social partnership. But, as always, there are no certainties.