Vol. 421 No. 1
10 Mr. Stagg asked the Minister for Social Welfare if, in the light of his recent remark in which he stated that our present social welfare system may not be sustainable and may have to be changed, he is proposing a streamlining of the present social welfare system as we know it; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
22 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Minister for Social Welfare if, in regard to his speech to the recent conference of European Social Security Ministers, and his suggestion that social welfare payments were draining the Exchequer and could not be maintained indefinitely, he will outline the specific plans he has, especially in the light of commitments given in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress that social welfare recipients would be protected and their living standards maintained, and where possible, improved; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10 and 22 together.
I am glad of the opportunity to put into perspective my comments on the future funding of social welfare services during the Fifth Conference of European Ministers for Social Security which I had the honour to host in Limerick three weeks ago. The conference was held under the aegis of the Council of Europe. The theme of the conference was "Social Security and the Labour Market" and it is not surprising, therefore, that the issue of the future funding of social welfare services should be raised in that context.
There is a clear commitment in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress to protect social welfare rates against inflation and to endeavour to improve as the resources of the economy grow. This Government have honoured that commitment. The question of further increases in rates is a matter for consideration at budget time in the light of available resources.
My comments at the conference were directed at drawing attention to a common feature of social security spending which is being experienced by governments across Europe. That trend is reflected in an increasing financial burden arising from factors such as rising unemployment and the ageing of the population. I made the point that we in Ireland are no different. In our situation, our rate of unemployment is unacceptably high and is a major constraining factor on the development of our economy. It follows, therefore, that with our rising number of unemployed and the high dependency rate inherent in our demographic situation we will find it more and more difficult to fund an increasing level of social welfare expenditure, without an improvement in the economic and financial situation.
My comments in this regard are not new. I made the same point during the passage of the Social Welfare Bill, 1992, some weeks ago. What I said at that time was that the notion that social security in this country was self-financing was a myth. Employers and employees pay into what is called the social insurance fund but the Exchequer also makes a very large contribution to that fund which makes good the deficit between what is received by way of contributions and what is paid out in benefits and pensions. The size of the Exchequer contribution this year will be £143.6 million as in the published Estimates for my Department.
In terms of the problems facing us in the future, we need to consider whether a fundamental review of our social security systems is necessary, which will address the question of targeting our scarce resources to those most in need. In addition, we need to deal with the problems caused by the sheer complexity, range and multiplicity of our social welfare schemes by simplifying and streamlining the system so that it can be more easily managed and understood.
My Department are currently examining those issues. I am preparing proposals at present for simplifying and streamlining the various means tests for social assistance schemes with a view to the introduction of one unified social assistance scheme. The question of the links between social welfare and the taxation system and the scope for closer integration of the two systems is also under examination.
I am glad my colleague, Deputy Stagg, put down this question because it afforded the Minister an opportunity of explaining the statement he made. I realise he made that statement during the debate on the Social Welfare Bill, but it sent shock waves throughout the country. It was interpreted by the public at large, particularly the unemployed, that there would not be enough money to pay them, or that social welfare payments would be reduced. Would the Minister indicate quite clearly that that is not what he meant by the statement which was reported in the national media? Would he give an assurance to the unfortunate people who are on social welfare because we are not providing jobs for them that no such intention was envisaged in his remarks?
Whatever about people outside this House being surprised at what I said in Limerick people who were here during the Social Welfare Bill should not have been in the least surprised. As I have said on a number of occasions, particularly during discussion on the Social Welfare Bill in this House and in Seanad Éireann, with gross expenditure in my Department in excess of £3,360 million for this year, with unemployment at such high levels, with an ageing population and higher dependency, with approximately — I am subject to correction on this figure — 1,384,000 people covered by single weekly payments and only about 1.4 million people paying into the PRSI fund, one would not need to be an economist of the Doheny and Nesbitt school, of UCD or any other university to realise that in the future, unless the economy grows at an enormous rate, Ministers for Social Welfare will have to target resources in the system.
As I said during Second Stage of the Social Welfare Bill, we can stand on high ground, put up our hands and say we will have this present social security system forever and that we will die for it, but the day will come when we will not be in a position to pay pensions to the old and people at the end of the market. Alternatively, we can make some effort to look at the whole social security system as it is funded at present. Greater and large economies than ours in Europe have found it impossible to continue with their social welfare systems for the very same reasons of unemployment, ageing and so on. We can sit on our high horses and say we will put up with the system as it is and do nothing about it but, as I have said on many occasions, I am not prepared to do that.
The Minister is a tough man.
We have to face up to reality and consider various schemes right across the board. To answer Deputy Bell's question, I never mentioned in this House or outside it that unemployment payments would be cut. However, a careful look will be taken at the whole social welfare system. As I said some time ago, I intend to bring forward proposals to streamline the system and I make no apologies for my views in that regard.
The Minister is saying that some week there will be no money to pay the unemployed.
We have a tendency in Ireland not to face up to reality in many walks of life, although Deputy Deasy is not one of those people. I am just facing up to the reality of the situation.
We all agree that the problem basically is not with social welfare but with unemployment. I hope the Minister makes as strong a case to his colleagues in Cabinet as he has made here to ensure that people get back to work. People do not wish to be on social welfare and we should not create the impression that because they are on unemployment benefit they are receiving charity. Would the Minister indicate whether we will receive assistance from the European Community in terms of the Maastricht Treaty which might help to get some of these people back to work, thereby reducing the bill he is talking about?
Money is received to deal with the whole area of educational opportunities. As the Deputy knows, there are various schemes in operation regarding training and so on. I will get the information requested by the Deputy, on European funding, but at present my Department do not benefit in this regard. We receive funding under various programmes for women but we do not receive direct funding for unemployment schemes. As I said yesterday in my speech on the Maastricht debate, EC funding may be provided in future as a result of the Maastricht Treaty to deal with unemployment and other problems, and that is something that can be considered.
It is accepted that if the money runs out there will not be any to pay social welfare recipients. I hope the Minister is not saying that this is the best the Government can do in this regard. As Deputy Bell pointed out we should start with the creation of employment. I hope the Minister will clear the air for the thousands of people who have worked extremely hard and paid their stamps and PRSI and expect a return in their old age. If one is to judge from leaked comments on the dental scheme there will be a surcharge of 30 or 40 per cent for services rendered, on top of the PRSI contribution. With all the straight talk the Minister is doing, it is time he cleared the air on where people stand with regard to their rights. It is one thing to talk about the money in the kitty running out but it is very difficult to explain this to a family on the lowest rate of unemployment benefit, through no fault of their own, when on the other hand two Greencore inspectors can get £500,000 for a couple of months work.
Please, Deputy Connaughton, we are straying considerably from the subject.
I hope the Minister will clear the air on this subject.
Questions please.
If economic activity was greater, employment rates were higher and we had lower levels of unemployment we could make many improvements in social welfare services. However, at the moment we do not have that. Despite the best efforts of the Government, and everybody else, we will have to journey on a long hard road to get back to what we could call an acceptable level of unemployment, if there is such a thing. If we can reduce unemployment, of course there will be money available to do all the Deputy would like us to do. My priority in any changes that will be made in the social welfare system will be to try to protect the people who contributed throughout their lives and who are now old and in receipt of pensions.
I have never heard such a public admission by a Minister in this House of the political failure of this Government. The Minister's implication is that the kitty is dry and that the sick, the aged and the poor could not be guaranteed their social welfare payments.
I never said that.
The Minister said that the country would not have the resources to look after the aged, the sick and other claimants unless a Minister bites the bullet. Having heard the macho speech from the Minister, having gone through the 1992 budget——
A question please.
——and having seen the Minister cut benefits in the Social Welfare Bill, 1992, will the Minister assure the House that the 241,000 old age pensioners, the 84,000 receiving contributory widows pension and those in receipt of child benefit will not be squeezed out of their benefits this year? What is not needed is a macho Minister saying he is going to clean up the House by penalising the poor, the aged and the sick and those who have contributed through their lives under the PRSI scheme.
Members may not debate this matter now. Doubtless, it will make for a good discussion later, but not now.
Can the Minister assure the House that he will not penalise the poor, the aged and the sick?
The Estimates for 1992 were published and we discussed the Social Welfare Bill, 1992——
Debate on it was guillotined; part of it was never discussed.
——into the late hours of the night. A fair part of the Bill was discussed over a few days. That is the way the House operates. I do not have any proposals, but it is my intention to protect the weaker sections of the community and to do my best with the resources available to me. Within those resources I will try to make decisions to assist these people.
What tough decisions is the Minister going to make?
Was the Minister successful in impressing on his colleagues, when he undertook the decisions to which he referred earlier, the seriousness of the unemployment problem with its obvious consequences? Did the Government discuss any tactics to deal with the problem?
We are straying from the subject.
As Deputy Durkan knows, and as has been announced on many occasions by the Taoiseach, unemployment remains a number one priority for the Government.
It is the priority of Ministers in all Departments. The more successful other Ministers are in creating employment the easier will be the job of the Minister for Social Welfare.
