Vol. 436 No. 2
6 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will examine the anti-family element of the social welfare code; and if he will take the necessary steps to eliminate the regulations in the code which encourage the break-up of families.
45 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Social Welfare the steps, if any, he proposes to take to remove the many anti-family elements of the social welfare system.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 and 45 together. The social welfare system is designed to support families. We have many schemes to help families and during my time as Minister for Social Welfare I have made many improvements which have greatly improved the situation of families. Over successive budgets we have increased substantially the level of child dependant allowances. For example, a family on long term unemployment assistance with three children got an increase in payment of more than 44 per cent in nominal terms, or over 20 per cent in real terms, between 1987 and 1993. This represents a very substantial improvement in the financial situation of these vulnerable families.
I have also increased the help available to families where the parent is working, through a series of improvements in the family income supplement scheme. In 1992 there were 7,735 families with 26,764 children benefiting under this scheme. This year the income limits for the scheme were increased by £20 at an extra cost of almost £2.5 million.
Child benefit is paid to all families with children, regardless of income or labour force status. This year the Government provided a special increase in child benefit from £15.80 to £20 in the case of the lower rate — at an extra annual cost of almost £50 million.
Other measures taken this year to improve the situation of families include improvements in the maternity benefit scheme and the introduction of a new grant of £200 payable on the birth of twins.
I will continue to keep the system under review and to improve the situation of families in the social welfare system as resources permit.
Will the Minister agree that cutting an elderly person's secondary benefits such as free electricity units and the telephone rental allowance is unjust, especially in cases where a companion is living in the house for security reasons because of the incidence of widespread attacks in the area? Will he further agree that it is an anti-family measure that young people are forced to leave the family home to qualify for unemployment assistance?
Will he accept that elderly people are forced into long term institutional care at an average cost to the State of £150 per week because the carer's allowance is inadequate? Will the Minister address the anti-family elements of the social welfare code?
If the Deputy gives me the details of the case I will certainly follow it up.
They are not specific cases.
As the Deputy knows, the conditions relating to the living alone allowance have a living alone clause which has been extended to include certain categories of persons. I need the details to look at the matter further.
It is a general situation.
In general, it is a matter for consideration in the budget each year.
We have discussed the carer's allowance at length. It is a means tested scheme which is proving very beneficial. It has been improved substantially this year and respite care is also being provided. Recently the Government provided £0.5 million for respite care and the sum is being doubled to £1 million which will enable further projects to get underway throughout the country. We would like to make further progress in this very important area and we certainly regard it as a priority.
To do away with the provisions of benefit and privilege would cost approximately £25 million. To give a short answer, it will certainly be considered in the context of the budget.
I had not intended to ask a further supplementary question but the Minister's last remark justifies it. The Minister said that doing away with the benefit and privilege——
To be fair to other Deputies, will the Deputy be brief?
——of accommodation and meals at home would cost £25 million. Will he quantify how much is paid in rent allowances to young people who now qualify for unemployment payments as a result of leaving home?
If the Deputy puts down a question I will get the details for him, I do not have that information to hand.
It is simplistic to say it would cost £25 million——
It would cost that to do away with the provision of benefit and privilege.
——but we must balance it with what is being paid out in supplementary welfare as a consequence of young people leaving home.
I know it is difficult and generally Members on all sides would like to tackle it further but really it is a matter for the budget.
