Vol. 543 No. 3
1 Mr. B. Hayes asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent report of the social welfare benchmarking and indexation group established under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. [27069/01]
2 Mr. Broughan asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if the Government accepts the report of the social welfare benchmarking and indexation working group on social welfare income; if he accepts the proposed target of 27% of gross average industrial earnings; his proposed time scale to reach this target; and the publication date of the report. [27066/01]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
The social welfare benchmarking and indexation group was established under the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. It began its work in December 2000 and completed its deliberations in early August 2001. The group's final report was presented to Government in September and its contents noted at that time. While arrangements for the formal publication of the report are in hands, I have, in the interim, arranged for copies of the report to be placed in the Oireachtas Library. The report is also available on my Department's website.
The terms of reference of the group required it to examine the issues involved in developing a benchmark for adequacy of adult and child social welfare payments, including the implications of adopting a specific approach to the ongoing uprating or indexation of payments, having regard to their long-term economic, budgetary, PRSI contribution, distributive and incentive implications, in light of trends in economic, demographic and labour market patterns, and to examine the issue of relative income poverty.
The group's report represents a valuable contribution to the development of policy on social welfare rates. It provides a comprehensive analysis of the implications of setting a benchmark for welfare payments and of adopting specific approaches to indexation. It sets out a number of recommendations on these issues, although the Deputies will be aware that it did not prove possible for the group to achieve a consensus position on the desirability of establishing a formal benchmark.
The report's findings and recommendations will be carefully considered in the context of the forthcoming budget and in the development of future welfare policy generally.
For several years the Minister has asked the House to wait for the conclusions of the report. His reply did not indicate whether he is in favour of the majority recommendation of the benchmarking and indexation group. Does he agree with the majority recommendation, supported by three members of his Department, that the lowest rate of social welfare should constitute 27% of gross average industrial earnings by 2007?
Rather than outline my personal view, I refer the Deputy to a more relevant view, namely, the first sentence of the majority recommendation in the report in which the group recognises that the exact rate was "a matter for Government"—
Does the Minister have a view?
—not the benchmarking group nor me, personally. Even those in the majority in the group recognised that decisions should be taken by the Government of the day on the basis of the prevailing economic circumstances. The report makes a valuable contribution. Many Deputies, including Deputy Brian Hayes, are critical of the fact that many outside groups rather than politicians are making decisions. Ultimately that responsibility lies with politicians. I assure the Deputy that the Government will take this report, as well as a number of other factors, into consideration when framing the forthcoming budget.
From the presentation we received yesterday at the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs it appears the report of the social welfare benchmarking and indexation group was effectively blown out of the water by the Departments of Finance and Enterprise, Trade and Employment, both of which are vehemently opposed to its findings. The question asked yesterday was why these Departments got involved in the benchmarking group if they fundamentally oppose benchmarking for social welfare payments. Is the Minister being resolutely bullied by the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, and his colleague, the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Harney, the two Progressive Democrat and quasi-Progressive Democrat members of the Government?
Will the Minister stand up for his officials who have long wanted a minimum income standard for the poorest people in society? Does he accept that insufficient research has been carried out in this area and that this has been his responsibility for the past four and a half years? Does he agree that the most recent research to hand, One Long Struggle, by the Vincentian partnership for social justice, in other words, St. Vincent de Paul, which dramatically shows that the increases in social welfare rates granted by the Minister over the past four and a half years are totally inadequate for meeting the needs of a family? The report states—
The Deputy may not quote at Question Time.
Does the Minister consider the following an adequate diet for an adult woman? "At breakfast, cereal, tea and toast; at lunch, soup, sandwich or toast; at dinner, sausages, burgers or fish fingers"?
It is out of order to quote at Question Time. The Deputy should confine himself to questions.
This case was quoted extensively and refers to a family of three, an adult parent and two children. It is one of 147 families studied in the Vincentian report.
The Deputy is making a statement.
Does the Minister agree with the conclusions of this report that the rate of income support for a single parent and two children falls short of requirements by £30? The report shows we do need a minimum income standard and it is the Minister's job to try to obtain one.
As usual, the Deputy is full of bluster.
That is untrue. This is not bluster. It is a report by the Vincentian partnership for social justice.
The Deputy is being disorderly. He should resume his seat.
An objective comparison of the record of the Governments the Deputy supported with the record of this Government will show his arguments do not stand up. In 1997, for instance, the Government Deputy Broughan supported did not give a real increase, that is, ahead of inflation, to people on social welfare. It did not introduce a real increase in 1998. The increase provided by this Government in 1999 was double the rate of inflation and in 2001 the increase in the rate of social welfare payment was above the rise in average industrial earnings and twice the inflation rate. The Deputy said not enough research has been done. I have incontrovertible research from none other than the CSO which shows that in 2001 the average industrial earning increase was 8.5%.
Short-term UA was two points ahead of that, 10.5%; old age contributory pension was 10.4%; long-term unemployment was 10.3%; unemployment benefit and disability was 10.3% as opposed to 8.5% for the average industrial earning and most of those figures were more than twice the consumer price index, 4.5% for last year. This should be compared with what happened when the Opposition were in office, and particularly in 1996 when the figures were way behind the gross average industrial earnings and ahead of the consumer price index at that time. The Opposition does not have a great record itself and should not be abusing this Government.
As this is Question Time, and hopefully answer time, I ask the Minister three straightforward questions and there should be straightforward replies. Did the Minister have a discussion with his three officials who are members of the benchmarking and indexation group before they decided to recommend the majority recommendation? Would the Minister accept that he is being dumped on by the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment who are ideologically opposed to any income standard?
That is true. It is sad, very sad.
I asked the Minister this question only six months ago and I repeat it now. As the Minister directly responsible and charged by Government for dealing with the issue of poverty, what in his view is a decent adequate income standard? Six months ago the Minister asked me to wait and see what the benchmarking review would come up with. They made their report. The only thing this Minister knows is that he does not know where he stands on the issue. He is like Hamlet, he cannot make a decision whether he is for or against it. The two big bad wolves are behind. The two Ministers, Deputies McCreevy and Harney, are dumping on him and that is why he cannot sign up to this report.
I suggest that any objective analysis of the facts in relation to the stewardship of this Government – which includes Deputies McCreevy and Harney – will show that the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, in particular has had his hands on the purse strings—
He has indeed.
He has his hand on the Minister's shoulder.
Both Deputy Hayes and Deputy Broughan continuously say that the Minister, Deputy McCreevy, is not as flaithiúil with the money as his predecessors. That is not the case. He has given record increases in old age pensions and record increases generally.
I did not ask the Minister that question. I asked if the Minister discussed this with the three officials.
The figures speak for themselves.
The Deputy should not ask questions unless the Chair gives him the floor. The Minister must be given an opportunity to reply.
The figures speak for themselves. In relation to gross average industrial earnings, we were way ahead this year. All these reports will feed into the budgetary process, exactly as was the case in relation to the pensions issue where a figure of 34% was recommended, but this Government has made more progress than that and when it is returned after the next election, progress will be made towards the benchmarking that has been indicated in this report.
Did the Minister speak to the three officials? He will not answer the question.
I will allow the Deputy to make a very brief comment. According to Standing Orders the time limit is up.
The time limit is up for two Priority Questions.
Yes, 12 minutes.
This is possibly the most important issue we could be discussing.
We cannot change Standing Orders.
The Labour Party asked the Minister, Deputy Ahern, if he is accepting the report of the social welfare benchmarking indexation working group.
Standing Orders cannot be changed on the floor of the House.
Is he accepting the proposed target of 27% of gross average industrial earnings? Will he inform the House of the timescale for reaching the target and will he give a publication date? Except for the last brief part of this question this Minister has come in here blustering and has refused to answer.
The Deputy must ask a question. If the Deputy does not resume his seat the Minister will not have an opportunity to reply.
My supplementary question is this. Does the Minister accept that many other countries, Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Sweden, Australia, Finland, New Zealand, Norway—
The Deputy must be brief.
—have a minimum income standard? Why will the Minister not accept that £85.50 a week, £84 a week, £112 for a family of three, are disgraceful rates of basic income? Over the four and a half years of his Ministry—
We must move on to the next question. I asked the Minister to deal with Question No. 3.
We have committed ourselves to all the increases in the PPF and we have delivered on them; we have more than delivered on them.
I ask the Minister to deal with Question No.3.
