Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 26 Feb 2002

Vol. 549 No. 3

Priority Questions. - Social Welfare Benefits.

John Browne

Question:

33 Mr. Browne (Carlow-Kilkenny) asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if he has received the report from the working group established under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness; when the change came about which gave a different rate to widows under 66 years from those over 66 years; and the clause in the regulations governing widow's and orphan's contributions under which contributors are made aware of the difference in payment to widows under 66 years. [6435/02]

Under the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, a working group was established to examine the range of complex issues associated with the benchmarking and indexation of social welfare payments. The group comprised representatives of the social partners and relevant Departments and was chaired by an independent chairperson, Professor Kieran Kennedy, former director of the Economic and Social Research Institute.

The group began its work in December 2000, produced an interim report in April 2001 and completed its work with a final report in September 2001. In An Action Programme for the Millennium, the Government was committed to increasing the rate of the old age pension to £100 or €126.97 by 2002. This commitment was later extended, in the review of An Action Programme for the Millennium midway through the Government's term of office, to cover other payments made to people over 66 years of age, and in the case of widows and widowers a further commitment was made to increase the contributory payment to the same level as the old age contributory pension.

The current rate structure, which comprises an under 66 and over 66 rate, was introduced in 1998 and since then widows and widowers over 66 years of age have received a number of special increases in pursuit of the commitments and objectives I have outlined. At this stage, those over 66 years of age have received increases amounting to almost 50% since 1998 while those under 66 years of age have seen their payments grow by about 31%. With the increases granted in 2002, the initial commitment in relation to payment rates for those over 66 years of age has been met in all cases.

With regard to the question of social insurance, cover for widows' and orphans' pensions is encompassed in the standard PRSI contributions. The rate at which PRSI is levied is not related to the final payment a person can expect. Information on the different rates which apply to various schemes is, of course, available in the Department's information literature.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Does the Minister accept the differentiation between widows aged under 66 and those aged over 66 is a major bone of contention for those whose husbands paid into PRSI schemes? They were not warned that a distinction would be made between widows aged under 66 and those aged over 66. Widows aged under 66 are likely to have more expenses because their children still depend on them. For example, if a widow is aged 46 or 50 her children will still depend on her whereas a widow aged over 66 will have reared her children and in many cases they can look after her. Does the Minister accept it is totally unjust to differentiate between both groups, particularly given that those aged under 66 are more likely to be in more need of the payment?

There has been a 31% increase in the payment for widows aged under 66 since 1998 while there has been a 50% increase for widows aged over 66.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): That has nothing to do with the question.

The reason there is a distinction is that the Government made a policy decision when it took up office to increase payments for widows aged over 66.

The Minister has let down women.

If any Members Opposite have a complaint or believe we should not have done so, they should speak out. We make no apology for that policy decision. The changes we made over the past five budgets have been the correct way to go.

We examined carefully what we could do to assist widows aged under 66 and I gave careful consideration to proposals over the past two or three years because of the increases that had been introduced, which were linked to relativity. When I took up office, the bereavement grant was £100, whereas now it is £500 or €635.

That was a one-off.

I also brought in the widowed parent's grant, as a recognition of widows aged under 66 and a special grant of £500 to supplement the bereavement grant two years ago. I increased the widowed parent's grant to €2,500 in the recent budget. I have given some recognition to widows aged under 66.

If one does anything in regard to widows aged under 66, one is open to the accusation of not addressing other single parents and my Department received strong advice that changes could not be made to the payments for widows aged under 66 without incurring knock-off effects in regard to other lone parents aged under 66.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): The Minister is giving us information that we do not want.

Free of charge.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): We do not ever get an opportunity to ask supplementary questions to elicit the information we want. We cannot get him to say “I do” without making a speech because he goes on and on. He referred to making a distinction between single claimants but he is making a distinction between widows.

Hear, hear.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Will all the grants to which he referred be paid retrospectively? Can a woman who was widowed five years ago claim the new grants if she is aged under 66?

The changes to the bereavement grant were effective from whichever budget day they were introduced.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Then the answer is “no”. The Minister will waffle all day.

The increase I announced in the recent budget in the bereaved widowed parent's grant from £1,000 to £1,950 was effective from 5 December, budget day.

That concludes Priority Questions. We now move to Question No. 34

(Carlow-Kilkenny): That is grossly unfair. It is all waffle.

We have spent six and a half minutes on this question.

There has been more action on social welfare by this Government than any in which the Deputy's party was ever involved.

The Minister has wasted five years.

Any objective analysis of my record and that of the Government will show they are second to none. One can see that from the paltry number of questions that have been tabled today.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): That is all waffle. The widows do not appreciate it.

I call Question No. 34. I would like the Minister to move on to the next question.

Five years have been wasted.

The Deputy does not ask questions about any of the issues because he knows the record speaks for itself.

Top
Share