On the last occasion I had asked the Minister for some information but you, Chairman, asked me to wait until Deputy Lynch had made her contribution. You said the Minister would reply after that. Will the Minister provide the information?
SECTION 4.
Question again proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
If the Deputy would remind the committee what information he sought, I will try to find it.
I had asked what it would cost to bring short term payments, like supplementary welfare allowances and short term unemployment assistance, up to the level of the rates recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare or to increase them half way to that level in the current year.
My understanding is that to bring them half way would cost about £6 million and to bring them fully up to the level recommended would cost about £12 million.
Do these figures relate to the two payments combined?
From my recollection that is the position.
It would cost approximately £6 million to bring supplementary welfare allowance up to what level?
The Deputy's question related to the additional cost of bringing supplementary welfare allowances and short term unemployment assistance to the lower range of the rate recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare. My understanding is that it would cost about £12 million in a full year to bring these payments fully to the recommended rate and about £6 million to bring them half way.
Are both of the figures for a full year?
The first appendix of the replies provided to Deputy Walsh shows the additional cost in a full year of increasing payments to the £50 rate recommended by the CSW. Short term unemployment assistance will affect 39,000 people and the 1995 rate is £60.40. The CSW rate is £66.60. This would involve an increase of £6.20 and the full year cost would be £12.7 million. To bring the payment half way towards that rate would cost £6.3 million.
Increasing supplementary welfare allowances would affect 16,500 people and the current rate is £60.40. The rate recommended by the CSW is £66.60 and the increase required would be £6.20. The full year cost of increasing the payment up to the recommended rate would be £5.3 million and to bring it half way would cost approximately £2.7 million. The combined cost of bringing both payments up to the level of the rates recommended by the CSW would be about £18 million for a full year and about £9 million in a full year to bring them half way to the recommended rates. These are quite significant costs.
Some 39,400 people are paid short term unemployment assistance and 16,500 people are paid supplementary welfare allowance. Nearly 56,000 people receive the lowest payments. These must by definition rank among the poorest people because they are means-tested and their real position is as low as the means test.
It would cost only £12 million in a full year to bring to the main rate of £66.60 all those people at the lowest end who are, by definition, the poorest people in thesystem. Obviously, this year it would cost around half that if they were to be brought in at the full rate. With the 2.5 per cent increase they would go to £60.40, so the effect of that increase holds them much further back from the main rates which were recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare. It would cost only an additional £6 million in a full year to go half way — that is to a rate of about £63 — while this year it would cost only an additional £3 million. So, we are talking about finding £3 million to bring those at the lowest level half way to closing the gap on the main rate. Each year there has been an attempt to bring people on the lowest payments up, but this year there has been no such attempt. They should be given something extra this year and brought to the main rate next year.
The Minister should have gone to the main rate this year for the lowest paid. If you are going to tackle poverty this is where the real poverty is. As the Minister pointed out the other day, there are different kinds of poverty, but poverty is clearly defined here. When the Minister sits down to decide on the allocation of resources these people must get priority. We know, from what the Minister has told us and from information supplied to Deputy Walsh, that to bring short term unemployment assistance and supplementary welfare allowances up half way to the main rate this year — to something over £63 instead of £60 — would cost only £3 million. That is worth while doing and it should have been done this year.
I find it hard to see why the Minister will not agree to a better increase for people on the lowest payments who are now only going to get a miserable 2.5 per cent. It fits in with the budget arithmetic and this Bill but it is not right and should not be happening. I do not understand how it can be supported this year. Nor can I understand how the Minister can feel happy with himself or even live with himself while not providing any increase, above the 2.5 per cent, for the lowest paid.
In 1994 this section of the Bill, dealing with assistance payments, provided for £49.5 million but this year the sum is only £38 million. It is a retrograde step for people on the lowest assistance payments. No amount of covering up by public relations will overcome the problem for people caught on these low rates. It is a dereliction of people on the lowest payments, those who are in greatest poverty.
The Minister has time before Report Stage to reconsider the position of the poorest people. I do not have to quote from the various reports. What reports does the Minister or any Deputy need, to realise that £60 a week for people on means tested payments, short term unemployment or supplementary welfare allowances, is just not adequate. It has been defined as inadequate again and again yet the Minister is making no effort to remedy that. The Minister has managed to find a lot of other moneys, so surely he can find £3 million to bring the lowest paid and poorest at least half way towards the main rate. That is not asking very much and it should have been done in the first instance.
I have answered all these points numerous times.
Question put.
The Select Committee divided: Tá, 12; Nil, 9.
|
Tá |
|
|
Ahearn, Theresa. |
Hogan Philip. |
|
Bradford, Paul. |
Kemmy, Jim. |
|
Costello, Joe. |
McCormack, Pádraic. |
|
De Rossa, Proinsias. |
McGrath, Paul. |
|
Fitzgerald, Frances. |
Nealon, ted. |
|
Flaherty, Mary. |
Pattison, Séamus. |
|
Níl |
|
|
Ahern, Noel. |
Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire. |
|
Brennan Matt |
Martin, Micheál. |
|
Callely, Ivor. |
Walsh Joe. |
|
Clohessy, Peadar. |
Woods, Michael. |
|
Flood, Chris. |
Question declared carried.