asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will reverse the recent change he has made in the eligibility conditions for entitlement to rent and mortgage supplements under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme, as these changes will leave people in receipt of such supplements with a disposable income of £3 below the subsistence level, and for single people on unemployment assistance will involve a reduction in disposable income of 4.6 per cent; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Supplementary Welfare Allowance Scheme.
47.
Under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme a person can receive supplementary payments to assist with rent or mortgage commitments. Under these arrangements a payment towards rent or mortgage interest can be granted where the rent or the mortgage interest exceeds a certain amount. This amount has been increased from £1.50 to £3 per week with effect from 2 November 1987.
When the figure of £1.50 was introduced in 1977 it was intended to represent the amount included in the basic supplementary welfare allowance payment in respect of rent. The amount has remained unchanged since 1977 despite the substantial increases in social welfare payments in the meantime. In this context. I regard the increase to £3 as reasonable in present circumstances. Furthermore, the increase only applies to new applicants for rent or mortgage supplements and there is no reduction in payments to existing recipients of rent supplements. There are no proposals to amend the provision on the lines outlined by the Deputy.
Will the Minister accept that it is incredibly unfair to reduce the disposable income of the very categories about whom we have just been talking — the unemployed living alone on £35 per week — by £1.50 per week in respect of the rent subsidy? In the week before Christmas, will he accept a plea not to do this in relation to those on unemployment assistance, living alone, or to those receiving a single person's allowance and living alone?
The 1987 published estimate of expenditure under the scheme is £37.62 million. Expenditure is running slightly above the published estimate and the total cost is likely to be about £38.5 million. Therefore, the Deputy will appreciate that there is considerable pressure in this area for funds overall which is being met, in so far as it can, in the present circumstances. The change made is a review of the base which, if it were to have been increased along the lines of social welfare increases in the interim, would have been £5.20. An increase from £1.50 to £3 is very reasonable in those circumstances.
I note the Minister has not disputed the fact that we are talking about a 4.6 per cent reduction in disposable income of those already living on £35 to £37 per week who happen to be living in private rented accommodation and who, therefore, do not have the benefit of a differential rent. Does the Minister realise that they are the poorest of the poor? While he is giving Christmas bonuses across the board to those with two and three pensions he is taking from the very lowest category of social welfare beneficiaries. Will he please reverse his decision?
As a matter of interest, under the rent allowance scheme in operation for decontrolled rent cases, clients are expected to bear £4.10 per week which is higher than the level proposed here. I did not argue with the Deputy about his calculations but if he looks at them again he will find he is slightly out in his costs because he must take a percentage as a percentage of what it was and what it has been reduced to.
There has been a lot of talk here about selecting the poorest categories of social welfare beneficiaries for special favourable attention. Will the Minister not admit that the result of his first nine months in office is precisely the reverse? Not only did he cancel the £3.50 special increase proposed by the previous Government, he is now taking a further £1.50 from the poorest of the poor. The Minister should be ashamed of himself.
I do not agree with the Deputy. The Minister has done very well since the economists would tell him very clearly and quickly that he should be increasing the amount to £5.20. The Minister has succeeded in keeping the amount down to £3.
The economists do not have to live on £35 per week.