Bernese welfare cuts not permitted for temporarily admitted persons

Ad

the essentials in brief

• The Bernese government councilor Pierre Alain Schnegg wanted welfare cuts.
• Only temporarily admitted persons would have been affected by this.
• The governor’s office has now declared this move to be inadmissible.

The reduction of social assistance for temporarily admitted persons by the Bernese government council is inadmissible. The government governor’s office in Bern-Mittelland has approved a complaint against it. The office has asked the cantonal government to reverse the ordinance. The office held that the cut was legally untenable.

Avenirsociale published the decision on Saturday. The professional association for social work supported the complaint of a family of five whose basic needs had been reduced. The decision of May 12th is before the Keystone-SDA news agency.

Only 1684 francs

The government council’s decision to cut the plan came from the health, social and integration directorate of Pierre Alain Schnegg. As of July 1, 2020, this ruled that the basic needs for a family of five of temporarily admitted persons would be 1,684 francs. Before it was 2364 francs.

The governor’s office stated that the government council could regulate the amount of social benefits in an ordinance. In doing so, however, he must adhere to the legal framework. The ordinance with the reduction for a group of people contradicts the principle of equal treatment anchored in the cantonal social welfare law.

The canton parliament wanted to fix the unequal treatment in the revision of the social welfare law. The people, as the highest legislator, rejected the revised law in the vote on May 19, 2019.

State arbitrariness

The unequal treatment by the Grand Council was thus obsolete and therefore clearly not provided for in the referendum, writes the governor. Thus, the regulation disregards the will of the people and democratic rights.

The reduction also contradicts the principle of legality, which is binding for all state activities and which protects citizens from the state’s arbitrariness. Avenirsociale was pleased with the decision. The complainants were right on all points.