Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 5 Jun 1991

Vol. 409 No. 4

Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Review Group Findings.

Paul Connaughton

Question:

8 Mr. Connaughton asked the Minister for Social Welfare if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the report of the Review Group on the Treatment of Households in the social welfare code appears to suggest that the present system of social welfare payments, advocating as it does that the financial needs of two married people are less than two single people living apart, may not be constitutional; if he will outline views on this conclusion; and the financial implications of this change of policy.

Pat Rabbitte

Question:

19 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will outline the Government's response to the report of the review group on payment to households; if, in view of the fact that the group were unable to reach consensus on the main issues referred to, he will outline the steps the Government intend to take to deal with the many anomalies regarding the treatment of married couples and unmarried cohabiting couples in the social welfare code; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Pat Rabbitte

Question:

40 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he intends to implement the recommendation of the Review Group on the Treatment of Households that the concept of adult dependency should be abolished and that each person should be entitled to a share of the overall social welfare payment in their own right; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

I propose to take questions Nos. 8, 19 and 40 together.

I am happy to be able to inform the House that the report of the Review Group on the Treatment of Households in the social welfare system was laid before the Oireachtas on 23 May. In keeping with the commitment contained in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, the report will be discussed with appropriate interests. The Government have approved the publication of the report in full and copies of the report have been made available to all groups which made submissions. It will be published shortly.

Possible options for the future development of the payments system are identified in the report but the group were unable to decide on the most suitable approach to further changes in the present arrangements.

A number of specific instances in the social welfare code which treated married couples less favourably than unmarried cohabiting couples were amended in the Social Welfare Act, 1991.

These concerned the payment of child dependent increases, entitlement to supplementary welfare allowance and assessment of means for family income supplement. When the review group were set up I said that the question of the treatment of different household situations within the social welfare code was a very complex area which needed full and careful consideration. This report shows now true my evaluation was at that time. The group examined the existing rules in the social welfare code and how these affect households of different kinds — married couples, cohabiting couples and relatives or non-relatives sharing a household. The report is a very expert and forthright presentation of highly complex legal and administrative arrangements and I have no doubt that there will be widespread interest in the issues raised. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the issues with appropriate interests. I am confident that the end result will be proposals for a consistent and equitable approach to the future development of the social welfare services.

Does the Minister agree that the financial needs of two married people are less than those of two single people living apart? That is the basis of a document in so far as policy is concerned.

The situation is a good deal more complex than that.

That is their finding.

The Supreme Court decided in the Hyland case that married people could not be treated in a way that was disadvantageous in relation to cohabiting couples. A number of changes were made in the legislation to accommodate the situation. The expert committee have looked at the longer term effects, the report is there but they could not agree on the best measures to deal with the problem.

It is obvious that the Minister does not know what to do either.

It will have to be more widely discussed with the various interests involved, which we will do, and after that——

The Minister does not have any views.

I have many views but it is a very complex matter.

Top
Share