Paul Connaughton
Question:1 Mr. Connaughton asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will outline the amount of family income supplement paid out in 1990 and 1991 and the total number of recipients in both years.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Family Income Supplement Expenditure.
Expenditure on the family income supplement scheme amounted to £8.75 million in 1990 and £10.3 million in 1991. There were 6,570 persons in receipt of the allowance in 1990 and this had increased to some 7,200 by the end of 1991. I can inform Deputies that this covers 25,900 children.
Significant improvements in the income limits of this scheme were announced in yesterday's budget, which will come into effect from July. These increases will ensure that, when taken with the changes in personal income tax, the incentive to work is protected and improved for existing recipients of the family income supplement.
The income limits are being increased by £15 to £18 which will give an increase of £9 to £11 per week to most current recipients of the scheme.
These improvements will cost an additional £1.5 million this year and £3.3 million in a full year bringing total expenditure on the scheme to almost £12 million this year.
The Government are committed to developing the family income supplement scheme as a central income support mechanism for working families on low incomes. I will be keeping the scheme under review to ensure that as many people as possible are aware of the scheme.
I thank the Minister for his reply. Would the Minister agree that the family income supplement, if properly used, could overcome the poverty trap and be a stimulus to get people to work, particularly those in low paid jobs? It would act as an incentive to them to keep away from the dole. If the scheme is as good as I think it is — the Minister believes it is useful — why is it that only 7,200 people availed of it in 1991 when 270,000 people are out of work? Surely the Minister has plans, other than those announced in the budget yesterday, to make this scheme more meaningful and less restrictive.
I have allowed the Deputy some latitude without precedent. It seems to me that Questions Nos. 1 and 2 are essentially statistical, and, strictly speaking, matters of policy should not, therefore, arise.
I agree with Deputy Connaughton that the purpose of the scheme is to provide incentives to unemployed people to take up work and for those in low paid employment to remain at work and improve their position. The scheme is a useful one. There was some disappointment at the time of the introduction of the scheme that more people did not avail of it. It appears that there are more people who would benefit from the scheme. All we can do is highlight the scheme here to make more people aware of it. It is a very good scheme and one I would like to see improved and developed in the future.