Parties in Parliament differ sharply on future of income supplements
Centre and Greens would like to have KELA, and not local authorities, pay basic sum
|
|
|
The views of Finland’s Parliamentary parties diverge sharply with respect to what the future allocation of tasks of local authorities and the Social Insurance Institution (KELA) should be.
The Sata committee set up to consider an overall solution to social welfare issues, proposes solutions to issues including whether or not the base part of income supplements should be paid by KELA, and not the social services authorities of the various municipalities.
Of the government parties, the Centre and the Greens are most eager to shift burden to KELA. Of the large parties, the National Coalition Party and the Social Democrats are taking a more cautious view.
Those who support a change to the present system say that currently the various local authorities have differing criteria for paying the subsidies.
Secretary of State Ilkka Oksala (Nat. Coalition Party) of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, says that social work and income supplements should not be split apart from each other. “The possible achievable administrative benefits that would come from concentrating the payments on KELA would be inadequate compared with the harm that it would cause on the social work side”, Oksala says.
The issue has been disputed for a long time. There was an experimental programme shifting the payment of income supplements to KELA in the mid-1990s, but the experiment faltered on political differences. For instance, Ben Zyskowicz, the chairman of the Parliamentary group of the National Coalition Party at the time, was in favour of keeping the payment of the supports in the hands of municipal social welfare authorities, saying that his Parliamentary group “does not want income supplements to be a new automatic money distribution system in Finland”.
The basic level for income supplements for a person living alone is EUR 399.10 a month.
Social Democratic Party deputy chairwoman, MP Maria Guzenina-Richardson does not want to take any unequivocal stands for or against the proposed move, but she has doubts about shifting the burden to KELA.
“Do we now want to build a kind of automatic income supplement mechanism, which could be compared with a civic wage for the poor?”
“Then it would be justified to ask if we want to turn people passive so that they would be left on this kind of civic wage, and think that they do not need any of that other social work.”
The Greens would shift the payment of the support to KELA. The party’s Parliamentary gorup chairwoman Anni Sinnemäki says that the change would free municipal social workers to do their actual jobs.
Guzenina-Richardson and Sinnemäki agree that primary supports, such as maternal, paternal, and sick leave pay should be raised more quickly than current plans call for, so that fewer would be dependent on income supplements.
In the Centre Party, Terttu Savolainen, Secretary of State to Minister of Social Affairs and Health Liisa Hyssälä (Centre), emphasises that all options need to be weighed in a balanced manner.
“Now we openly have all of the issues on the table, but now is not a time for taking a stand, but rather for preparation. If we now start taking stands, all the work that we have done will be bogged down”, Savolainen says.
Helsingin Sanomat
|
| 19.8.2008 - TODAY |
 Parties in Parliament differ sharply on future of income supplements |
|
