Vol. 426 No. 1
9 Mr. J. Mitchell asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will list the disimprovements in social welfare entitlements introduced during 1992 which have been referred to as the "dirty dozen" cuts; and if it is intended to reverse these cuts.
29 Mr. Connor asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he accepts that certain provisions in the Social Welfare Act, 1992 commonly referred to as the "dirty dozen", are seen in many quarters as sources of injustice; and if he intends to abolish, or reform these provisions.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 9 and 29 together.
In 1992 the Government provided for a range of improvements in social welfare services, including a 4 per cent increase in payments and special increases in the lowest payment rates. These improvements increased social welfare expenditure by some £85 million in 1992 and £162 million in a full year. Overall expenditure on social welfare services increased from around £3.1 billion in 1991 to an estimated £3.4 billion in 1992. A number of measures were adopted to make resources available for improvements. Where particular difficulties emerged in relation to certain measures, arrangements were made to revise them.
I am at present reviewing the measures and any changes considered necessary in the light of that review will be provided for in the context of the budget.
Would the Minister agree with the description of these cuts in the leaflet by Deputy Stagg, now Minister of State, as the "dirty dozen" cuts?
A Cheann Comhairle, I am surprised you have allowed this language here because it is not usual parliamentary language. I have told the Deputy of the extra amounts of money supplied last year for social welfare services and I have said that I am reviewing these measures.
The Minister said that the words "dirty dozen" are not parliamentary language. They are not my words but the words of his colleague, the Minister of State with responsibility for urban renewal, Deputy Stagg, and of Senator Wall, who was nominated to the Seanad last week by the Taoiseach. Is the Minister conscious of the great hardship that has been caused to many social welfare recipients by those cuts? Will he assure the House that in keeping with their word, this new so-called partnership Government, which includes the Labour Party who said they were against the "dirty dozen" cuts, will now reverse these cuts?
I do not intend to re-address the last general election. Some of these measures were necessary in the development of the social welfare system. Some may not have been desirable and in effect we are looking at their impact in light of the review that will take place.
