Vol. 462 No. 1
6 Mr. Briscoe asked the Minister for Social Welfare in view of the fact that the social welfare Christmas bonus is traditionally paid each year, his views on whether it would be appropriate in future to include the anticipated Christmas bonus sum in the Social Welfare Estimate rather than the traditional Supplementary Welfare Estimate; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1221/96]
50 Dr. Moffatt asked the Minister for Social Welfare the precise level of unemployment on which social welfare estimates for expenditure in 1996 are based; the plans, if any, he has to include future Christmas bonus payments in the Estimates for the year; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4030/96]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 and 50 together.
The payment of a Christmas bonus to the recipients of long-term social welfare payments has been a feature of the social welfare system since 1980. Traditionally, no provision is made for the cost of the Christmas bonus in either the annual estimates or at budget time. This arrangement has enabled the Government of the day to determine the level of the bonus and the means of financing it in the light of the emerging budgetary situation during the year.
There are no plans to amend existing arrangements in regard to the payment of the bonus.
Would it not constitute better housekeeping and a tidier budgetary arrangement to have this provided for at budget time rather than await a Supplementary Estimate at the end of the year?
Not necessarily.
Has the Minister given any consideration, at least for the coming year, to paying long-term disability recipients a Christmas bonus? Does he not consider it quite unfair that somebody in receipt of unemployment assistance is paid a Christmas bonus whereas somebody else who is ill and in receipt of disability benefit does not receive one?
An annual review is undertaken within my Department — and this would apply to last year and this year — of the overall range of categories of claimants who should receive such payment and the level at which it should be made. Given the nature of the Christmas bonus, the manner in which decisions are taken on it and in which it is paid, it would be inappropriate for me to indicate now what might or might not be paid at the end of the year.
Would the Minister agree that there is considerable uncertainty about the payment of the Christmas bonus? In replying, he said its payment was dependent on budgetary considerations, which is why it is not included in the budget at the beginning of any year. Would he agree that it would be better for him to take such a decision now and have it included in the annual budget, thus guaranteeing a specific, minimum level of bonus rather than allow the ad hoc arrangement to continue?
While funding for the Christmas bonus clearly has not been included in the budgetary arithmetic for any year since its introduction in 1980, it has been paid annually by all successive Governments regardless of their composition. However, the rate of bonus paid has varied from year to year, as have the categories of recipients. Since 1980 the number of categories of eligible recipients has been increased rather than reduced. The level of the bonus has been reduced at various stages and increased at others. For example, when first introduced in 1980, it was a 100 per cent bonus; some years later it was reduced to 60 per cent. It was subsequently increased to 70 per cent and to 75 per cent in 1993, 1994 and last year.
Would the Minister agree it would be a neater budgetary exercise to include the Christmas bonus? Sometimes it may be regarded as a political bonus for a Government to announce, prior to Christmas, that a bonus will be awarded, often in response to parliamentary questions tabled at that time. Since it has been paid since 1980, would the Minister not agree that a round figure should be included in the annual budget since, in essence, it has come to be perceived as an entitlement?
There is an argument on both sides. One argument is that it would be neater to have the Christmas bonus included in the budgetary arithmetic and the amount in terms of payment fixed, the categories and so forth. The other side of the argument is that if there is pressure in any year, as in past years, on the budgetary arithmetic, there might be a tendency to reduce it because it is a bonus and not a weekly payment on which people budget their weekly existence. There would be pressure to reduce it because there would be pressure on the budgetary arithmetic. Having examined both arguments I am in favour, for the moment at any rate, of maintaining the current position.
Will the Minister agree that after 16 years it has become an entitlement? If the Government failed to deliver the Christmas bonus it would be viewed very severely. I would not like to be a member of the Government that did not pay it. If it became part and parcel of their entitlement it would give old age pensioners an added sense of security that their bonus would be there for them.
The Deputy is making my case for me. The fact that it would be politically extremely difficult for a Government not to proceed with the bonus at Christmas time underpins the point I am making. It would be more difficult to abandon it in November or December than at budget time.
I want to make progress on other questions. I will call the two Deputies offering but I ask them to be very brief.
In budgeting for Christmas it would be a good idea if the elderly and people on social welfare in general knew well in advance what they would receive. If the bonus were included in the budget it would rule out the uncertainty experienced by many groups coming up to Christmas as they cannot budget properly.
I asked for brevity and I expect brevity.
Would it be more humane to include the Christmas bonus in the budget so that the elderly and those on social welfare could plan properly for Christmas?
I have already indicated my thinking on the matter. The understanding I have outlined outweighs the negligible advantage there would be for the kind of certainty the Deputy speaks about. I have no reason to believe that anyone who has received the Christmas bonus in the past and who would be in receipt of the necessary entitling payments would have any fear it will not be paid given that it has been paid every year since 1980.
The Minister still wants to be Santa Claus.
Has the Minister laid down any regulations or guidelines on how it should be paid to recipients in health board homes? I had a case recently where an elderly man in a health board home was looking forward to receiving the Christmas bonus so that he could give presents to his grandchildren but the health board retained it. Is the Minister satisfied with the way in which the health board behaves in such matters?
I do not know the circumstances of the particular case. I will have the matter investigated and will write to the Deputy about the outcome.
