Vol. 413 No. 3
4 Mr. Byrne asked the Minister for Social Welfare when it is intended to initiate the review of social welfare rates with the aim of providing greater equity between recipients, and families in particular, who are in similar circumstances, which was promised in the Review of the Programme for Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
As indicated in the review of the Programme for Government, one of the specific objectives of the Government is the review of social welfare rates with the aim of providing greater equity between recipients, and families in particular, who are in similar circumstances. This process, as the House will appreciate, is a continuing and evolving one.
Considerable progress has been made over the past few years in improving and steamlining the basic rates of social welfare payments. All long-term assistance payments, including non-contributory old age pension, long term unemployment assistance, pre-retirement allowance, lone parent's allowance and single women's allowance now have a uniform weekly rate of £55. This rate exceeds the Commission on Social Welfare's priority rate which is £54.60 in 1991 terms.
Short-term payments such as disability benefit, unemployment benefit, short-term unemployment assistance and supplementary welfare allowance were increased last July to a uniform weekly rate of £50. This was a major step towards achieving the commission's priority rate for these short-term payments by 1993, in line with the Government's commitment in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress.
Recent research has indicated that large families in particular need support from the social welfare system. In this regard, child income support has been improved substantially. In the last three years the number of child dependant allowance rates has been streamlined from 36 to three rates. As well as general increases in line with inflation, the minimum child dependent allowance has been increased to £12, representing a 100 per cent increase on the 1987 rate. Child benefit has been increased to £22.90 for the fourth and subsequent child and the family income supplement — which supports families on low incomes — has been improved, thus ensuring that those who are working for low wages are not worse off than if they were unemployed.
As I already said, the process of review of the social welfare system is a continuing one. In formulating further proposals for reform I will take account of the recommendations of the Commission on Social Welfare and of the Government's commitments under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress and the review of the Programme for Government. I can assure the House that any measures which can be taken to reform and develop the social welfare system, within the financial constraints which exist, will be taken.
I, like other Members, welcome the Minister to his new portfolio. Will the Minister give a commitment that when the review is completed he will not, like his predecessor, review the rates, applicable to co-habiting couples downwards? Does the Minister agree that the review should upgrade the low rates? Does the Minister acknowledge that there is a great variation between the rates for single men and single women varying from £40 to £64 along with variations for adult dependants from £28 to £37 and that when one comes then to child dependants there are variations from £12 to——
I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy, but clearly he is imparting information rather than seeking it. This is Question Time.
Is the Minister effectively saying that, when streamlining and applying rates to families in similar circumstances, he will break down the benefit between those who are on insured schemes and those who are in receipt of State assistance? Is it the policy to equalise downwards?
I assure the Deputy that at this stage there is no one more familiar with the complicated system we have in this area, than I. In my short time in the Department I saw at first hand the number of schemes and their variety and complexity. The general intention is to review upwards rather than downwards. While there may be a case for rationalisation, it will certainly not be in the best interests of people to rationalise payments downwards. A commitment has been given under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress in this regard. I will closely examine the system and during my term of office here I hope to be able to implement a system of rationalisation of schemes without reducing payments to people who are in need.
A brief question, Deputy Byrne. The time for dealing with Priority Questions is well nigh exhausted.
The Minister's predecessor said that he would review the social welfare code. That is welcome. Lest the Minister might have thought I was being frivolous about equalisation between insured workers and those in receipt of State assistance, is the Minister aware that even at present unemployment benefit, which is running at £50 to an insured worker is £55 to those on long-term unemployment assistance? Those who are on assistance are getting £5 more than those who are on unemployment benefit who have been insured during their working lives. The Minister might explain what direction the Minister's intention will take in order to apply money to those people who are in similar circumstances? For example, an unemployed worker——
The Deputy has made his point rather effectively.
Whilst some long-term unemployed people on long-term unemployment assistance may well be in receipt of less than those who are in receipt of benefit——
They are getting more than those on benefit.
Many of those would have been on benefit and would have come off benefit. I take the Deputy's point but, broadly speaking, what we are endeavouring to do is to keep the rationalised schemes in line with the recommendations of the commission and the commitments that have already been given.
The time has come to deal with other questions.
