Vol. 490 No. 3
13 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs whether he will undertake a review of social welfare legislation with the objective of eliminating qualification anomalies or black spots; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10110/98]
As part of its normal business my Department undertakes a wide range of reviews of its activities. Such reviews are intended to ensure that the social welfare schemes continue to operate effectively and fulfil their objectives in the light of current needs. These reviews also give rise to opportunities to rationalise and simplify the social welfare system. Any consequential changes to the Social Welfare Acts are normally incorporated in the annual Social Welfare Bill which implements the budget improvements in social welfare.
For example, in this year's Social Welfare Bill, which was recently passed into law, I took the opportunity to rectify a number of anomalies which had come to my attention. These relate to the alignment of grants payable in respect of multiple births under the child benefit scheme so that all multiple births will receive a grant of £500 at birth and further grants of £500 at the age of four and 12 years and for the disregard of rental income in the means test for widow's and widower's non-contributory pension on the same lines as provided for old age non-contributory pension. Obviously I will continue to look for anomalies and blackspots in the future.
When reference is made to doing little or nothing in regard to the social welfare code the Minister is only a few months in office, but in terms of claiming credit for the booming economy he is waving the flag very high. Will the Minister give a list of the anomalies and the cost of correcting them? There is a sense of injustice on the part of people who may receive little under the social welfare code and who see their neighbour getting more. Will the Minister agree such anomalies should be eliminated?
On the three separate rates of the child dependence allowance, it seems ridiculous that one child should be valued more than another. The need is the same in all cases. Does the Minister see merit in producing a list of the anomalies and the costs, which we must all confront? We are not talking about people who have contributed to a fund from which the cost should come but about making an extra budgetary commitment. Does the Minister see merit in a list, which we could debate?
When one moves the goalposts to try to cure a problem, which one tends to do from time to time in this job, one invariably comes up against another problem. For example, I wished to fulfil a commitment we gave in the Programme for Government in relation to twins. When I set out what I wanted to achieve in terms of grants for twins, I found I was, in effect, discriminating against those who had triplets. I had to make an adjustment in that respect in the budget at a further cost. It would not be possible to list all the anomalies because one would invariably leave out examples. There are hundreds of thousands of situations in which we believe there are anomalies. I accept one could hone them down to perhaps self-employed pensions and other issues which arise from time to time.
The Minister admits there are anomalies.
During the last Question Time I admitted there was an anomaly, not of my making. These issues would be high on my list. Deputies on both sides of the House are adept at raising questions on anomalies and I always answer them as best as I can.
I was surprised the Minister said these anomalies were brought to his attention in his few months in office. Surely, he came across far more anomalies during the ten to 12 years in this House than since he was appointed to the Department.
I now know the cost of them.
I hope he has not set aside the good information he obtained as a mere Deputy. It is important to identify anomalies and the costs involved and raise them at the Committee on Family, Community and Social Affairs. There are anomalies which are not sustainable and cannot be resolved because of regulations. For example, if somebody is working part-time, in receipt of a certain amount of unemployment assistance and FIS and receives an income which could be declared as means, it is counted twice as means — when they are being assessed for unemployment assistance and again for the family income supplement. That is not reasonable.
We must bear in mind we are talking about people on the margins — those on low incomes. A change of £10 per week in their income is important. Will the Minister take up my colleague's good suggestion and bring forward a list of anomalies which we could discuss at the Committee on Social, Family and Community Affairs, with the costs?
I am always conscious of any difficulties in the social welfare code. With due respect, it would not be feasible to list the anomalies in that when dealing with 800,000 people, there are always difficulties. We endeavour to take care of them as best we can, as my predecessors did. No matter what costings I bring forward, I have no doubt those on the other side of the House will find difficulties with them.
The Minister's record on costings is not very good.
It was announced in the budget that all old age pensioners would get an increase of £5. There is an anomaly in that many of them are not getting that increase because part of their income comes from social welfare in the UK or elsewhere. For example, a person getting £30 per week from the UK and £45 here is only getting a £3 increase. Will the Minister look at this matter because some people are disappointed? The number involved is not too great and it would not cost too much money. I understand a person who receives a certain amount from the UK, which does not constitute a full pension here, is paid on a pro rata basis.
It was indicated at budget time that all those entitled to the full rate would, in effect, get the £5. Somewhere in the region of 300,000 people will get the £5 increase and approximately 50,000 will get a proportionate amount. People may have taken up the position incorrectly, but that is the case.
That is one thing for somebody who is means tested, but somebody in receipt of a pension, part of which is paid by the UK or elsewhere, should be treated differently.
