Vol. 477 No. 6
7 Dr. Woods asked the Minister for Social Welfare the level of real increases in social welfare payments; the increase in non-contributory old age and widows' pensions and long-term unemployment assistance over the lifetime of the current administration for each year; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9914/97]
The full year cost of the increases announced in the three budgets introduced by this administration in 1995, 1996 and 1997 was £588 million. The increase in the cumulative real value of social welfare payments announced in these three budgets ranged from 2.6 per cent to 8.6 per cent after taking inflation into account.
The cumulative cash increase in the weekly personal rate of non-contributory old age pension, non-contributory widow's pension and long-term unemployment assistance was £6.50. There were also increases in adult dependant and other allowances, where applicable.
The real value of non-contributory old age pension, non-contributory widow's pension and long-term unemployment assistance was maintained in 1995, while substantial resources were concentrated on increasing child benefit by 35 per cent.
The real value of non-contributory old age pension, non-contributory widow's pension and long-term unemployment assistance, after taking inflation into account, rose by 1.5 per cent in 1996.
The full year cost of the increases in these three payments announced in the 1997 budget is over £45 million. This will result in a further real increase of at least 2.5 per cent in 1997. It should also be noted that the ESRI in its report on income adequacy commissioned by me as Minister points out that secondary benefits are worth approximately 15 per cent extra to a pensioner couple, which is approximately £15 or £16.
This Government is determined to protect and enhance the value of social welfare entitlements. The increases implemented in the 1995 and 1996 budgets brought the widow's contributory pension, deserted wife's benefit and carer's allowance up to, and in most cases, beyond the minimum level recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare.
The increases implemented in the 1997 budget, which will take effect in June 1997, bring those payments and the old age contributory and retirement pensions further over the minimum level recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare and will also bring the invalidity pension up to that level.
By June 1997, the lowest payments will be within 5 per cent of the recommended level, while most of the payments not already at or above the recommended level will be within 2 per cent of it. Furthermore, the Government is committed to bringing all remaining rates up to the level recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare during the lifetime of the Partnership 2000 agreement.
Full details of the increases in all the various social welfare payments over the past three years are provided in the following Appendix.
Appendix
Table 1: Real Increases, 1994-1997 (Year-on-Year)
|
Scheme |
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
Total |
|
% |
% |
% |
% |
|
|
Carer's Allowance |
0.00 |
6.23 |
2.22 |
8.59 |
|
Orphan's Pension/Allowance |
0.02 |
1.22 |
4.76 |
6.05 |
|
Unemployment Assistance (Short-term) |
0.09 |
1.62 |
2.57 |
4.33 |
|
Supplementary Welfare Allowance |
0.09 |
1.62 |
2.57 |
4.33 |
|
Old Age (Non-Contributory) |
0.00 |
1.51 |
2.42 |
3.97 |
|
Pre-Retirement Allowance |
0.00 |
1.51 |
2.42 |
3.97 |
|
Disability Allowance |
0.00 |
1.51 |
2.42 |
3.97 |
|
Disability and Injury Benefit |
0.00 |
1.51 |
2.42 |
3.97 |
|
One Parent Family Payment |
0.00 |
1.51 |
2.42 |
3.97 |
|
Deserted Wife's Allowance |
0.00 |
1.51 |
2.42 |
3.97 |
|
Prisoner's Wife's Allowance |
0.00 |
1.51 |
2.42 |
3.97 |
|
Widow's Non-Contributory Pension |
0.00 |
1.51 |
2.42 |
3.97 |
|
Unemployment Benefit |
0.00 |
1.51 |
2.42 |
3.97 |
|
Unemployment Assistance (Long term) |
0.00 |
1.51 |
2.42 |
3.97 |
|
Widow/er's Pension |
0.02 |
1.34 |
2.18 |
3.57 |
|
Deserted Wife's Benefit |
0.02 |
1.34 |
2.18 |
3.57 |
|
Invalidity Pension — Under 65 |
0.09 |
1.43 |
2.30 |
3.86 |
|
Invalidity Pension — 65 or over |
0.07 |
1.34 |
1.78 |
3.22 |
|
Old Age (Con)/ Retirement Pension |
0.07 |
1.34 |
1.78 |
3.22 |
|
Occupational Injury Benefit— Disablement |
0.05 |
1.35 |
1.20 |
2.62 |
|
— Survivor's |
0.02 |
1.30 |
1.27 |
2.56 |
Table 2: Rate Increases, 1994 to 1997
|
Year |
Old Age (Non-Con) Pension |
Widow's (Non-Con) Pension |
Long Term Unemployment Assistance |
|
£ |
£ |
£ |
|
|
1994 |
61.00 |
61.00 |
61.00 |
1995 Budget
|
Increase (£) |
£1.50 |
£1.50 |
£1.50 |
|
Increase (%) |
2.46% |
2.46% |
2.46% |
|
Real |
|||
|
Increase |
0.00% |
0.00% |
0.00% |
|
(Inflation was 2.5% in 1995) |
|||
|
1995 |
£62.5 |
£62.50 |
£62.50 |
1996 Budget
|
Increase (£) |
£2.00 |
£2.00 |
£2.00 |
|
Increase (%) |
3.20% |
3.20% |
3.20% |
|
Real |
|||
|
Increase |
1.51% |
1.51% |
1.51% |
|
(Inflation was 1.6% in 1996) |
|||
|
1996 |
£64.50 |
£64.50 |
£64.50 |
1997 Budget
|
Increase (£) |
£3.00 |
£3.00 |
£3.00 |
|
Increase (%) |
4.65% |
4.65% |
4.65% |
|
Projected |
|||
|
Real Increase |
2.42% |
2.42% |
2.42% |
|
1997 |
£67.50 |
£67.50 |
£67.50 |
At the time the budget was introduced in January 1997, inflation was projected to be 2.2 per cent in 1997. Inflation since then has been very low.
Does the Minister agree he has reached a new low when he must include secondary benefits to justify the level of increases granted in the previous three budgets? It is the first time I have heard a Minister of any party in this House emphasis that, if one includes the secondary benefits, they represent an additional 15 per cent. When one examines the cumulative position over those three years one readily realises the Minister needs to lean on something. Since he has mentioned that the increase for, say, widows was 1.5 per cent in 1996, in these times of great economic growth and development, with the Celtic tiger spreading largesse in the lead up to the general election, does he not agree that was very poor treatment of widows, old age pensioners and of those genuinely unemployed?
The Minister has emphasised that the levels for the unemployed were maintained in 1996. The average increase over the three years for a widow is only £2.20 and for a pensioner is less than £2.20 per week. That is all this wonderful Rainbow Coalition has meant to widows and old age pensioners. For the long-term unemployed the average increase is only £2.17 per week. There is no point in speaking in global figures of £588 million. The reality is that the increases are negligible. This has been borne out by various commentators and the people have been badly treated.
I do not accept the Deputy's thesis. It is legitimate to point out that many people on social welfare benefit significantly from secondary benefits other than the cash received, ranging from free television licences, free telephone allowances, fuel schemes, rent supplements under SWA and free travel. When seeking to measure the support which the taxpayer provides to pensioners, widows and various other categories this contribution is equivalent to roughly 15 per cent on top of the cash received. That is not an insignificant figure. As regards the figures quoted by Deputy Woods, for the three budgets introduced by me on behalf of the Department of Social Welfare and the Government for the years 1995-97, inclusive, the increases were greater than in the cumulative three budgets introduced by the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government in its term of office.
That is not true. I have no less an authority than Vincent Browne who gave accurate figures. He said the sad reality is that in the social welfare area the performance of this Government does not match what was done even by Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats between 1989 and 1992. He goes on to show the increases were zero, 1.4 per cent and 1.7 per cent, and the Minister has confirmed this today. Will the Minister agree that under the Fianna Fáil-Labour partnership in the years 1993-94 the increase over the two years — taking the total Estimate — was 10 per cent while under the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Coalition between 1989-92, a three budget period similar to that of the rainbow coalition, the average increase was 29 per cent whereas the rainbow coalition's percentage is only 18 per cent. The average increase for an adult dependant of a non-contributory old age pensioner, of whom there are 112,000, mainly women, was £1.17 per week per year. That is the sad reality of what the rainbow coalition has done to old age pensioners. Admittedly it tried to make it up before the election. The deficit is so great at this stage and even though the Minister has taken the three years together they are left in a bad way.
The Deputy is on shaky ground if he is quoting Vincent Browne as his source for statistics.
It was taken from Department of Social Welfare figures.
Vincent Browne took the three budgets introduced by Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats and only two of the three budgets introduced by me.
That takes in the secondary benefits.
When we compare the three budgets introduced by Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats with the three budgets introduced by me in relation to social welfare we will find the increases provided by my administration in the Department of Social Welfare are greater. That is the truth.
At a time when the Minister had all the money to give out and there was huge growth in 1995 of 10.1 per cent GDP, created by Fianna Fáil in Government, he gave no real increase.
I am anxious to make some progress in deference to other Deputies who have tabled questions.
Is the Minister embarrassed quoting these figures and attempting to justify what can only best be described as a miserly, mean and most unjust increase to the most deprived and marginalised, most of whom are destined to a life on the dole? Coming from a Minister of his political background and a party that claims to be from the extreme left, his failure to match the overrun in public expenditure in the area of social welfare allowances is a sad reflection on the socialist agenda of this Administration. Will he accept there has been a cumulative or an aggregate 20 per cent increase in the overrun in public expenditure in the past three years? The social welfare increase in 1995 for a number of the categories outlined was in line with inflation. We are all aware of that. In 1996 the increase was 1.5 per cent and 2.5 per cent in 1997. I described this expenditure overrun in my budget speech as a most irresponsible cost overrun across all Government Departments. Incidentally, all Government Departments failed to account for it to the public in reply to Dáil questions I had tabled and it is unacceptable to quote a 1986 commission report at a time when the economy has money flowing into it. The Minister should admit that his tenure of office in the Department of Social Welfare has been a dismal disaster.
If I did not realise the Deputy was so desperate I would respond to him in like manner.
I am not desperate, the Minister is.
The Deputy is selecting figures and generalising them across the work I have done in the Department of Social Welfare. The fact is that the vast majority of the people are not now condemned to unemployment for the rest of their lives.
That is an assertion, not a fact.
This Administration is responsible for the creation of 100,000 net new jobs in the past two years and the figure is likely to reach 150,000 by the end of this year.
The Minister will not be around.
Therefore, hundreds of thousands of people who would still be unemployed if Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats were in office are employed.
An assertion, not a fact.
When I came to the Department of Social Welfare 1 per cent of social welfare expenditure went on assisting people into employment. That figures has now reached 10 per cent, contrary to what the Progressive Democrats claim, that people are better off on social welfare. The reality now is that a person is always better off at work because of the reforms I have introduced in the Department of Social Welfare.
That is mainly the back to work allowance which——
I am surprised that the Deputy dismisses the 1986 report by the Commission on Social Welfare.
I do not, but it was published in the context of different economic circumstances.
The Deputy does not understand the position. The figures I quoted with regard to reaching the target set by the 1986 report have been updated in line with the 1997 consumer price index values. Based on that measure, most payments are either over the 100 per cent rate recommended by the commission or at 98 per cent. Only two rates are at 95 per cent. All of the others are at a minimum of 98 per cent and some are at as much as 115 per cent.
In the course of my tenure at the Department I have increased child benefit in excess of 50 per cent. If the Deputy knows anything about poverty in Irish society, other than spouting nonsensical rhetoric——
The Minister is the master of that.
——he will know that the most effective way to tackle poverty is to direct resources to families with children, because they are the ones most at risk. The Government has done this by increasing child benefit by 50 per cent. I have nothing to be ashamed of in my Department.
Will the Minister be honest enough to admit that, in accordance with figures submitted by his Department, the percentage increases in payments to pensioners, widows and people on social welfare over the three budgets introduced by the Fianna Fáil/Progressive Democrats coalition Government were in excess of the percentage increases awarded by him in the first two budgets introduced by the Government? Will he also confirm that it was only in this year's budget, in the run up to the general election when one can get anything one requests, that something decent was done for pensioners and those on social welfare? The figures were supplied by his Department to Vincent Browne, and either his Department or somebody else is telling an untruth.
Does the Minister have any concept of the level of unemployment in my constituency of Cork North-Central, despite the trumpeting of new jobs, and will he accept that it has increased there since the Government took up office? Will he also accept the veracity of Fr. Seán Healy's verdict on the budget when he said that "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting rhetoric". The poor are getting rhetoric from Democratic Left.
Correct. A golden opportunity was missed.
If Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats are returned to Government, which is becoming less likely, the poor will get short shrift.
They did not get short shrift when we were in Government.
The Deputy's leader is on record as saying that the Progressive Democrats will only support those who can help themselves. God help the sick, the disabled and those not in a position to earn a living because of disability or otherwise. That is what faces the poor if the Progressive Democrats get into Government with Fianna Fáil.
The Minister should visit my constituency.
We would be back to the bad old days of Thatcherism in Britain, which is being abandoned by the people there.
Nobody believes that guff. I object that my taxes go to supporting the five fiction writers the Minister employs in his Department.
The Deputy's party leader is on record as saying that the Progressive Democrats will only help those who can help themselves. I remind the Deputies opposite that this is what the Progressive Democrats offer by way of coalition.
Fr. Seán Healy is entitled to use whatever fancy words he chooses. However, if he compares this year's budget with any introduced by Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats when in Government, or by any other Government, he will find that massive resources have been allocated to the poor and to those who are not well off. Deputy Quill insists on repeating the inaccuracy published by Vincent Browne in The Irish Times, where he compared three budgets introduced by the Fianna Fáil/Progressive Democrats coalition Government with the Government's first two budgets, rather than being fair and comparing their three budgets to the three budgets introduced by the Government.
Take them on a case by case basis.
If the comparison I suggest is made, it will be found that the increases are greater in the case of the three budgets introduced by this Government.
The Minister is good at distorting facts.
Does the Minister believe the figures produced by his Department in conjunction with the Social Welfare Bill, which show that in 1989 when Fianna Fáil was in Government with the Progressive Democrats, the long-term unemployed were awarded an increase of 11.9 per cent while supplementary allowance, the lowest benefit payment, was increased by 11.1 per cent and in the following year the increase was 10.6 per cent for the long-term unemployed and 7.1 per cent for the short-term unemployed and those on supplementary welfare? These were real increases to those at the lowest level. The Minister and Government should stop trying to fool the public with statistical lies and realise that they made a blunder in leaving pensioners, widows and the long-term unemployed in the cold for two years. They are now trying to recover their position.
There is little point in attempting to put facts before the Deputies because they are not interested. When the increases provided by Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats in the three budgets they introduced are compared with the three budgets introduced by the Government it is clear that I have provided a greater allocation of resources to social welfare. These increases have been delivered without cutting other social welfare benefits. I do not have to remind Deputies of the "dirty dozen" cuts for which they were responsible, the effects of which I have reversed over the last three budgets.
The Minister is scraping the bottom of the barrel.
The increases I have provided have not been at the expense of other social welfare recipients, which was the case when Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats were in office. Their increases were paid for by cuts in other social welfare benefits.
I laud the Minister for increasing by 150 per cent the carer's allowance in the case of a parent looking after two people. However, I must condemn him for his failure to recognise——
The Deputy must proceed by way of a question.
Will the Minister accept that he committed a serious injustice against parents who only care for one person but whose degree of disability is such that they need care 24 hours a day? Such parents cannot take a break for even one minute. I am aware of the case of a woman who has a 16 year old daughter who lies flat on her back all day every day. She is also doubly incontinent. The woman receives a carer's allowance. Another woman, who lives three streets away, takes care of two people, both of whom, when dressed and fed, can be left to fend for themselves in the house for a few hours until she comes back and looks after their lunch and other needs. The significant difference in terms of the quality of life of the two carers and the persons for whom they care should be reflected in the increases. Will the Minister accept this is a blatant example of a discriminatory increase?
That is a completely different question.
It is not completely different. It relates to the rates of increase. The Minister should back up his statement.
It is not related to any of the points raised in the original question but I am happy to deal with it.
The Minister raised it.
I am proud to deal with it because I significantly increased the carer's allowance in all the departmental budgets I introduced.
I lauded the Minister for that but he should not dodge the central issue.
There was a massive £5 increase last year in addition to the normal increase provided the previous year. There was also a 50 per cent increase for those caring for more than one incapacitated person. I made provision for companion passes for carers who could not avail of free travel and for an increase in the level of income which could be disregarded in terms of means testing. I provided significant increases in the carer's allowance.
That is not the issue.
The issue is that I have significantly improved the carer's allowance.
I lauded the Minister for that.
The Deputy picked a bad example.
It relates to severity of disability. Shame on the Minister.
The Minister, without interruption.
The carer's allowance has been dramatically improved the last three budgets. However, I agree much remains to be done in this area. In that context, a study was carried out jointly by my Department and the Department of Health and the recommendations of that report are being implemented step by step.
The Minister did not answer the question. Shame on him.
I have a particular interest in the carer's allowance because it was introduced by the Fianna Fáil/Progressive Democrats coalition Government.
The question is being extended.
The Leas-Cheann Comhairle will understand I have more than a passing interest in this element of the question.
Does the Deputy want to go back into coalition with those people again?
Did the Minister have any twinges of conscience when he read statements by the Irish Medical Organisation in today's newspapers that hundreds of carers are living below the poverty line? Did that grab his conscience given that the Tánaiste is in Limerick talking about our abundant society? For whom is the economy abundant? It may be abundant for the Minister and the Tánaiste but it is not abundant for carers.
I am delighted the IMO has discovered carers and poverty in society.
The Minister should not be so sarcastic.
Perhaps the IMO will bear them in mind when it seeks an increase in its capitation fees in terms of available resources for social services. As I said earlier, there is a strong case for improving the carer's allowance.
We accept that.
I offered Deputies on the Select Committee on Social Affairs the opportunity to discuss ways that might be achieved. I am prepared to do that because much more needs to be done about income adequacy. I intend to address that over the next five budgets after the general election.
The Minister should admit that he let those people down.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
