Vol. 494 No. 5
44 Mr. Broughan asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the cost of providing for the maintenance of long-term payments for those completing community employment and qualifying for unemployment benefit; the plans, if any, he has to address the issue of loss of long-term payments; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15931/98]
The issue raised by the Deputy relates to those former community employment, CE, workers who revert to the live register after completing a period on a CE scheme, and who, by virtue of having paid class A PRSI contributions, may qualify or re-qualify for unemployment benefit rather than reverting to long-term unemployment assistance. As a consequence, they lose entitlement to the social welfare secondary benefits which are payable only with long-term welfare payments.
This issue arises as a direct consequence of the extension of class A PRSI to community employment, CE, workers, which was provided for in the Social Welfare Act, 1996. The purpose of this measure was to enhance the PRSI status of community employment workers and to put them on a par with other class A workers.
In the case of persons who qualify or re-qualify for unemployment benefit their earnings in the relevant tax year will determine whether or not they receive a graduated rate or the full rate of unemployment benefit. Persons entitled to a reduced or graduated rate of unemployment benefit are entitled to claim unemployment assistance if it is more beneficial to them. However, long-term unemployment assistance is not payable where the claimant is entitled to full rate unemployment benefit. Since the position of former CE participants will vary depending on their own particular circumstances, it is not possible to provide a precise estimate of the cost of enabling such people to retain automatic entitlement to long-term unemployment assistance should they revert to the live register after finishing a period of CE.
More generally, however, the Deputy will recognise that I am not in a position to introduce special concessionary arrangements for CE workers who re-qualify for unemployment benefit without having equal regard to the position of other short-term social welfare payment recipients. Any such concessions would, accordingly, carry an extremely high cost and could only be considered in light of available resources and in the light of other priorities. By way of illustration, it would cost some £5.4 million to extend the Christmas bonus to all UB and DB recipients.
45 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs whether it is proposed to bring in a supplementary estimate which would ease the plight of those social welfare claimants for whom no increase in their weekly payment is due until June 1999, in view of the recent findings of the CSO that food prices have had a significant jump over the past year; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The 1998 budget provided for significant social welfare increases. A special increase of £5 per week in the maximum personal rates of payments has been provided for some 270,000 pensioners aged 66 and over, with pro-rata increases for a further 54,000 pensioners on reduced rate contributory pensions. The £5 increase represents an increase ranging between 6.4 per cent and 7.4 per cent. These are the largest percentage increases which have been provided for the elderly since the early 1980's.
This year's budget also provided for a general increase of £3 per week for some 560,000 social welfare recipients aged under 66 years, with prorata increases for a further 6,000 people on reduced rate contributory payments. The £3 increase represents an increase ranging between 4.2 per cent and 4.6 per cent.
In addition, the increases provided in the budget took effect from the first week in June. This means that this year's increases are being paid for 31 weeks — an additional two weeks on previous years. The consumer price index, CPI, measures the monthly changes in the cost of purchasing a representative "basket" of consumer goods and services. The quantity of each item in this basket is proportional to the average amount purchased by all households in the country, as determined by the latest household budget survey. While the cost of some of the items in the "basket" might increase, these can be offset by reductions in the cost of other items.
While a projected rate of inflation of 2 per cent for 1998 was estimated at budget time, the latest estimates suggest that the average rate of inflation for 1998 will now be in the region of 2.75 per cent.
