Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 10 November 2004
69 Mr. O’Shea asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the number of persons eligible for the family income supplement who are in receipt of the supplement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28227/04]
View answer96 Mr. Gogarty asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the additional measures he intends to put in place to increase the take-up and use of family income supplement. [28171/04]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 69 and 96 together.
Family income supplement is designed to provide cash support for employees in low-paid employment with children. This preserves the incentive to remain in employment in circumstances where the employee might only be marginally better off than if he or she were claiming other social welfare payments.
The improvements to the family income supplement scheme, including the assessment of family income supplement on the basis of net rather than gross income and the progressive increases in the income limits, have made it easier for lower income households to qualify under the scheme. For example, the budget for 2004 raised the weekly income limits by €28 at each point, adding an extra €16.80 to the payments of most FIS recipients. The minimum weekly FIS payment was increased by €7, from €13 to €20. The number of persons in receipt of family income supplement at the end of October 2004 was 14,303, with an average weekly payment of €74.16.
My Department undertakes a number of proactive measures to ensure people are aware of possible entitlement to FIS. These include advising all newly awarded one parent family payment recipients, advising all employers annually in PRSI mailshots and examining entitlement in all awarded back to work allowance cases. Information on FIS is also contained in all child benefit books and can be accessed on the Department's website.
In addition, the scheme has been extensively advertised through local and national media outlets, including newspapers and radio, as well as through poster campaigns and targeted mailshots. Every effort will continue to be made to publicise family income supplement and to increase awareness of social welfare entitlements generally.
We all agree that FIS is designed to encourage take-up of work by people with families and is calculated against a percentage of the net weekly income. Is it the case that approximately one third of potential beneficiaries who would gain from FIS do not claim? Will the Minister investigate it as it is an issue we raised with his predecessor? At a recent meeting, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul asked if the Minister would consider promoting the scheme through a public awareness campaign adequately funded by his Department. This could well deal with other issues to which the Members on this side of the House referred in previous questions. If we can get the aforementioned aspects working, there might be a significant increase in the take-up of the scheme.
Research undertaken by the ESRI in 1997, based on the results of a survey, suggested that fewer than one in three claimed benefits under the scheme. Since those with a higher entitlement are more likely to avail of the scheme, the take-up was estimated to involve between 35% and 38% of potential expenditure. I will consider stepping up the information campaign on the scheme.
Given that only one third of those entitled to family income supplement avail of it, will the Minister comment on the Combat Poverty Agency's call for an increase in both the rate and take-up of the supplement? The agency said that 17% of those in relative poverty are working and therefore the number of working poor is increasing at an exponential rate. The low take-up of the family income supplement doubles the effect on those who are not afforded the benefits that they are supposedly entitled to receive from the Department.
I am anxious that the take-up increase. I have indicated to Deputy Penrose that I will consider furthering the information and awareness campaign in this area. There is no doubt that poverty as we understand it in this part of the world, which is very often different from poverty in other parts of the world, is not confined to those on benefits. People on very low incomes, particularly those with large families, suffer also — Deputy Boyle used the term "working poor" in this regard.
A number of schemes have been designed to bridge the gap between unemployment and employment and to ensure that one stays in employment. The minimum wage legislation had a great impact in this regard. It ensured that the minimum wage was sufficient to entice one to enter the workforce and remain therein rather than continue to avail of unemployment benefit. Successive Governments have put a lot of time and effort into exploring the relationship between welfare and work. The schemes to allow one enter the workforce and remain therein have resulted in a low level of unemployment nationally. However, I take Deputy Crowe's point that parts of the country have higher levels.
How much has the Minister's Department spent on advertising the family income supplement in different media over the past two years? Would he consider using television as a medium for advertising it? Would he consider allowing people on community employment schemes, who are on very low wages, to avail of the supplement, especially those with children?
I do not have a figure concerning the amount we spend advertising the family income supplement. We have a number of awareness campaigns. We have not used television as such because we tend to focus on local radio and newspaper advertising. Some €300,000 to €400,000 has been spent on the advertising of particular schemes on radio and in newspapers. I will try to ascertain for the Deputy how much of this is devoted to the family income supplement, but it might not be possible to get a breakdown because the advertisements are sometimes general in nature and cover a number of schemes. I note the Deputy's view on the matter.
I will examine the implications of the Deputy's second question. As he knows, the scheme is confined to those in employment.
