Madam, - I refer to an article headed "Penny-pinching that saves a little but hurts a lot" in your edition of January 8th which questioned reforms of some social welfare schemes.
This and every week approximately 970,000 people will receive a payment from the Department of Social and Family Affairs. Those payments will benefit almost 1.5 million people, or approximately two of every five people in the State.
This year the projected level of social welfare spending will be more than €11.26 billion, 7 per cent above the amount allocated for last year.
Of every €3 this Government spends this year, almost €1 will go to social welfare recipients.
Because of the needs of recipients and because of my duty of care to those who fund the social welfare budgets it is important that all schemes are kept under review so that they can be modified to ensure that the best possible support package is delivered to those most in need.
To address a few points raised in your report which cited two examples. In the first, a family on low income, your report failed to mention changes that will allow more people to claim Family Income Supplement and the fact that the payment will be increased again later this year. It also failed to include the fact that this family is also entitled to Child Benefit of €125.60 per month which will further increase in April.
The other example cited is that of Mary, a separated woman with three children. Debts had built up and she approached the Money Advice and Budgeting Service (MABS), which my Department funds. Working with her MABS officer and her Community Welfare Officer (CWO), arrangements were made with her creditors that involved her making repayments of €60 per week. As she could not afford this, the CWO gave her a weekly supplement of €30, the effect of which is that the creditors get their money back twice as quickly.
No more new cases should be set up on this basis because the repayment arrangements that they underpin are clearly unrealistic and unsustainable. Existing cases - such as Mary's - are not affected as that would be unfair to the households concerned.
It is the creditors who are benefiting at taxpayers' expense and that is not appropriate.
In the case of the Rent Supplement, my position is that people with a long-term housing need require a long-term housing solution, not a weekly payment in lieu, whether paid by my Department or any other Department.
In the case of crèche supplements the fact is that crèches in disadvantaged areas require direct long-term funding so that they can plan their activities on a sustainable basis - and there is Government funding available for them to do just that. - Yours, etc.,
MARY COUGHLAN, Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Dáil Eireann, Dublin 2.