Vol. 417 No. 3
23 Mr. Ryan asked the Minister for Social Welfare if the Government will introduce automatic and individuated payments to the adult dependants of all social welfare recipients unless otherwise directed; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
24 Mr. McCartan asked the Minister for Social Welfare the steps which have been taken to implement the commitment contained in the review of the Programme for Government to give adult dependants the option of receiving a share of the overall social welfare payments in their own right; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 11, 23 and 24 together.
The report of the Review Group on the Treatment of Households in the Social Welfare Code has been made available and has been widely distributed. I have invited views on the report in line with the Government's commitment in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. An advertisement carried in all the national newspapers on 17 January asked that comments on the report be sent to my Department before the end of March.
The report addresses a number of fundamental issues in relation to the social welfare payments system. Among these is the question of whether the present structure of payments, involving personal payments and separate increases for adult and child dependants, is the most appropriate and whether a different system would be more equitable.
The review group identified several options for the future development of the social welfare payments system but was unable to reach a consensus on what would be the most suitable approach in the short term. These options, and other issues regarding the payments system raised in the report, are complicated ones and further consideration of the report and the finalisation of proposals will take some time to achieve. However, the matter will be given urgent consideration.
The provision of individual payments of adult dependant allowances generally would have major administrative implications and the appropriate arrangements in this regard will be considered in context of the report.
I do not want to address the complexity of the report. The Minister will be conscious that it was required in 1989 because of the Supreme Court judgment in the Hyland case. The report was produced in 1991 and now the Minister is looking for opinions of members of the public and other interested groups who have already made contributions. When will the Minister make a decision to move at least on some of the recommendations in the report, for example, that concerning dependent spouses. Would he agree that the classification of married women as dependants could effectively be abolished and that they should be getting an entitlement of 70 per cent of the rate of the welfare recipient?
If this were a simple matter I am sure previous Ministers would have resolved it. During the time I have been in the Department I realised that this area — the Deputy is probably much more au fait with it than I — is one of the most complex and complicated, legally and otherwise, in the Department. I wish to inform the Deputy I will not be making a quick decision on this matter as he seems to imply. The cases to which the Deputy referred are very complicated. The review group put forward various options but there was disagreement as to which option they favoured. It is a very complex area and I will not be rushed into making a decision. Advertisements were placed in the newspapers recently and in the light of the response I will consider my decision.
I agree it is a complex area. That problem has existed since 1989. Would the Minister not agree that in the time span it has taken to make a decision his Department have added further complications because there are so many anomalies regarding the treatment of couples contained in the social welfare code? For example, last year under the social welfare code, cohabiting couples were deemed to be the spouse of one another for social welfare purposes but under the Finance Act that same classification was not allowed for tax purposes.
A question, please, Deputy.
Would the Minister not agree that the longer it takes for him to make a decision various Government Departments will make the complex issue even more complex?
Yes, it is complex, complicated and brain-storming to think of all the ramifications in this area. I hope, following receipt of submissions which must be received by 18 March, to make a decision in the next couple of months. If it was easy it would have been done a long time ago.
Question No. 23 in the name of my colleague Deputy Ryan refers. The Minister said that individual payments are causing tremendous administrative problems. Is the Minister in favour, in principle, of individual payments to spouses, particularly women? That is the kernel of the question.
If Deputy Byrne did not get a response neither can Deputy Ferris expect to hear my opinion. At this stage, having studied the matter just for the past few weeks — I have not spent all my time studying this matter — I have not formed an opinion good, bad or indifferent about the study. It will require more time and consideration before I form a balanced opinion in this complex and complicated area.
May I ask the Minister if he is favourably disposed to the notion — contained in Question No. 23 — that women dependants are entitled to their own payments? Is he not aware that in many cases there is abuse of that entitlement by men recipients who spend the money on drink and do not give the money to women, thereby depriving them of a means of livelihood? Given the difficulties he has outlined is he favourably disposed to making the change?
On the grounds outlined by Deputy Stagg there is hardly any reason one should stand against that argument. This matter is very complicated. There are so many complications in this area that I cannot give a decision today.
Can the Minister be positive?
Let us deal with Question No. 12.
