Máirín Quill
Ceist:19 Miss Quill asked the Minister for Social Welfare his views on whether the present social welfare system discriminates against families based on marriage; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Social Welfare System.
The social welfare system does not discriminate against families based on marriage. Indeed, any such discrimination would be in conflict with the constitutional guarantee to protect the family and the institution of marriage.
The social welfare system is family orientated as illustrated by the fact that the weekly rates of payments under the social welfare code vary with family size with higher payments for larger families. The particular needs of different types of families are recognised and catered for in the social welfare code.
As Minister for Social Welfare, I have introduced various measures designed to meet the particular needs of different family units. These include the lone parent's allowance which I introduced in 1990 and more recently the new survivor's pension provided for in this year's Social Welfare Act.
Over successive budgets, we made many improvements which benefited families. Between 1987 and 1994 families on long term unemployment assistance with three children received an increase in payment of 49 per cent in nominal terms, or 23 per cent in real terms. The weekly income thresholds for eligibility for family income supplement have been continually increased, most recently by £10 in this year's budget. At a cost of £3.3 million in a full year, this year's improvement will give an additional £6 a week to 9,600 families.
Child benefit is paid to all families with children, regardless of income or labour force status. Since coming into office, this Government has made substantial improvements in child benefit at an extra cost of £61.5 million in a full year. The rate for each of the first three children is now £20 a month and £23 for the fourth and subsequent children. From September this goes up to £25 for the third and subsequent children benefiting over 270,000 children.
I will continue to keep the system under review, and to improve the situation of families in the social welfare system as resources permit.
The Deputy will know that this is one of the issues highlighted in the Programme for Government.
The income of a woman in receipt of the unmarried mother's allowance with a boyfriend on the dole in receipt of social welfare payments exceeds the social welfare payments to a married couple with one child. Will the Minister agree this is discrimination?
If I understand it correctly, the Deputy is referring to a woman in receipt of the unmarried mothers allowance cohabitating with someone on the dole, but obviously that is in breach of the legislation which supports families and cannot be blamed. If such a couple are found to be cohabitating, they will not receive certain payments. That is one of the problems in the system but it applies in other cases. I do not think this takes from the work of the Department or the Government's strong support for a basic income for families of which there is factual evidence.
Deputy Clohessy dealt with one aspect of discrimination against families. Will the Minister not accept that young unemployed people living at home are seriously discriminated against when they apply for unemployment assistance? If parents have a certain income young people do not receive unemployment assistance, but if they leave home to live in a flat or caravan they are entitled to social welfare. This will cost the State a great deal more money than if they were paid social welfare while living at home. I have argued before that this is serious discrimination against the family and it could be corrected by giving the unemployed person living at home a portion, perhaps three-quarters or one-half of the allowance, thus avoiding the need to leave home to qualify for benefit.
I could quote from studies which show that not many young people leave home because of family disputes or difficulties——
Will the Minister give the statistics?
A study was done in the Dublin area specifically which showed that 32 per cent of applicants had moved to Dublin from the provinces in search of employment; 19 per cent were considered to be cohabiting and 5 per cent had moved out of home because of family disputes. It was considered unlikely that any of these applicants which account for 56 per cent of the total would have remained in the family home if the social welfare provisions regarding benefit and privilege were different. A large proportion of the remainder had broken the link with the family home some years before. I am conscious of the difficulty in this area.
If my children apply for social welfare they will not get it.
In 1991 the Government introduced a minimum payment of £5. That figure has been increased to £10 this year. This is in keeping with what the Deputy has suggested. It would cost approximately £25 million to abolish the means test. I hope we will be able to make further progress in future budgets.
It would save the State millions of pounds.
What has been the cost to the Exchequer because of the anti-family elements; in other words, what has been the cost to the Department of Social Welfare in terms of supplementary welfare and rent allowances given that young people have left home due to this provision to live in a flat or apartment?
That is a separate question. This question relates to the provisions regarding benefit and privilege. I have outlined the present position. Provision has been made for alleviation payments. I am conscious of the difficulty in this area and would like to make further progress.
So much for the year of the family.
This year we raised the figure to £10.
That concludes questions for today.