Vol. 505 No. 7
14 Mr. Bell asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the plans, if any, he has to bring the date for increase in family income supplement into line with the tax year; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14585/99]
It has always been the case that increases in the thresholds which determine entitlement to family income supplement have been introduced in tandem with the general increases in social welfare rates and, in particular, with the increases in the rate of unemployment assistance. The purpose of family income supplement is to provide an incentive to low paid employees with families to take up or remain in full-time employment rather than availing of unemployment payments. The increases in the FIS thresholds are intended to ensure that, at a minimum, the incentive to take up or remain in low-paid employment is maintained and, where resources permit, enhanced. In that context, it is reasonable that these increases should be introduced in tandem with the increases in the rates of unemployment assistance.
The question of bringing forward the increases in the FIS thresholds to bring them into line with the tax year would have cost implications and would have to be considered in a budgetary context. On a general level, however, and given the purpose of the increases as I have outlined, the existing arrangements are reasonable and appropriate. The 1999 budget provides for an increase of £8 in the income thresholds at each point, which will ensure that virtually all those receiving FIS payments will gain by £5 per week.
If the Minister is serious about introducing a basic income, he should aim to ensure that all social welfare increases and tax changes take place on the same day. Why should the changes to family income supplement take place at the same time as the income changes for people who work? What improvements, if any, have been made in the dissemination of information about FIS? Many people in different occupations do not know about it.
Will the Deputy ask a brief question, in fairness to other Deputies?.
People should be able to avail of FIS. What is the Minister's plan for Comhairle?
We have undertaken a major information campaign. Last September I launched a document, "It Pays to Work", which brought together all the State agencies. One of its main planks was the family income supplement. The one major change in family income supplement was made by this Government. In our first budget we calculated family income supplement on a net income basis. That is expected to bring a further 7,500 people into the family income supplement net. The figure as of 21 May 1999 is 14,570 claimants, which represents the largest number recorded in this scheme. We estimate that this is likely to increase further given the increased publicity particularly from the document, "It Pays to Work". Strenuous efforts are to be made in regard to publicity. The positive impact of the move from gross to net assessment is illustrated by the increase in the number of applications received from 1 October 1998 to 31 December 1998.
Does the Minister agree that the scheme should be administered by the Revenue Commissioners and not his Department? When an individual falls below the threshold, he or she should automatically qualify for FIS and, hence, it would make it easier to administer. Many people do not know they qualify and it is estimated that there is only a 50 per cent take up of FIS. Could the Minister at least liaise with Revenue and ask it to contact people on low incomes so that there will be a 100 per cent take up?
Historically, the scheme has been administered by my Department and there are not any plans to remove it from my Department. The Deputy's point might by worthy of consideration down the line but between October and December 1998, the period to which I referred earlier, 2,834 first time applications were received, an increase of 55 per cent on the equivalent figure in 1997. It can be seen that there is a strenuous effort on the part of my Department to publicise this scheme and that people are applying in greater numbers than heretofore.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Does the Minister accept that there is a difficulty in that a person had to have a permanent job some years ago but that has changed and many people qualify based on the number of hours they work? Should that be highlighted?
It has always been the case that people were in and out of work and might not have qualified. I have not made any changes in that but I am aware of cases where people did not qualify because they did not have the required hours worked in a particular period.
