asked the Minister for Social Welfare the number of members of the Defence Forces who have had their family income supplement withdrawn from 1 January 1989 to 20 February 1989.
19.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Defence Forces Income Supplement.
9.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the total number of members of the Defence Forces in receipt of family income supplement for the year 1987-88; and the total cost.
23.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if most members of the Defence Forces in receipt of family income supplement have had their payments withdrawn as a result of the special pay increase announced by the Minister for Defence; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 9, 19 and 23 together.
As of 31 December 1988, 46 of an approximate 11,650 serving members of the Defence Forces were in receipt of family income supplement. These members have an average family size of over five children. The average weekly value of the supplement being paid to them is currently £5.30 bringing the total weekly cost to some £244.
Under the terms of the scheme, family income supplement is awarded for a period of a year from the date of claim and entitlement is reviewed at the end of that period.
Since January 1989, two members of the Defence Forces have had their supplement discontinued following their annual review. Other cases will be processed when their review dates arise. I cannot say in detail at this stage how the review will affect individual cases as this will depend on their family and financial circumstances at the date of each review.
As already announced in the budget an additional £1 million is being provided for improving the family income supplement scheme. A wide-ranging consultant's report has recently been received and the operation of the scheme is at present being reviewed in the light of this report. Improvements to the scheme arising from the review will be brought into effect in July next at the same time as other budget improvements to social welfare schemes.
Will the Minister ensure that the review of the family income supplement scheme will result in payments for families with a larger number of children? At present, as the Minister indicated, five is the maximum number of children eligible under the scheme. I think this is too low and is possibly a reason that some people are not availing of the scheme. Would the Minister consider increasing the number of children who qualify under the scheme to eight or nine and ensure that large families, where the income earner is on low pay, would qualify for the family income supplement?
This is one of a number of different elements considered in the review and is one with which I have a great deal of sympathy. I will certainly consider this aspect in the review.
We discussed the review when the Minister answered questions in January and I requested that a copy of the review be made available to Members who were interested in it. I understood from the Minister that he would arrange accordingly, but so far this has not been made available. May I ask the Minister again, particularly in the light of the Social Welfare Bill coming up for discussion next week, to arrange to have a copy of the review made available to those who want to discuss the family income supplement during the debate on the Bill next week?
I have no objection to publishing the review, but I only received a copy the night before last. As the Deputy may know, this is an internal document to advise me and the Government on what steps might be taken. Naturally I will have to bring this to the attention of the Government when discussing the improvements that might be possible. The Deputy mentioned that he would like a copy of the review next week and I will certainly to be able to provide a summary of the review by next week. In any event, it will have to be printed. I had said that when I received it I would be open to making at least a summary available to Members.
Does the Minister not accept that when I raised the issue in November last he confirmed that he had a draft report at that stage, in case the Minister is giving the impression that this dropped from the clouds in the last day or two? Second, when I raised the issue in January the Minister indicated positively that a summary — he indicated that there may be a difficulty with the full report — would be made available to Members who were interested.
I see no objection to publishing the whole report in due course, which will be reasonably soon. However the Deputy requested a copy of the review next week and it is only in the context of next week that the report might not be available, but I will certainly see about having a summary available for Deputies next week.