asked the Minister for Social Welfare the number of families who have benefited from the family income supplement scheme; and the cost of the scheme for each year since it was introduced.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Family Income Supplement Scheme.
8.
Family income supplements have been granted to about 6,950 families since the scheme was introduced on 1 November 1984.
Expenditure on the scheme in each year was as follows: 1984, £63,000; 1985, £2,315,000
Expenditure in 1986 is forecast at £3.5 million.
The Minister said, in replying, that something of the order of 6,500 families had availed of the benefits of the family income supplement scheme last year. Would he not concede that there is a huge discrepancy between that figure and the 35,000 families his Government forecast would benefit from the scheme when it was first introduced in 1984? Indeed, I should remind the House that it was introduced to compensate for the fact that the Government halved the food subsidies, saving £45 million last year. Would the Minister concede that there must be something seriously wrong either with the benefits accruing to applicants under the scheme — because its provisions have not been taken up — or the criteria for eligibility are too stringent? Can the Minister give the House any explanation as to why the number of beneficiaries is so low compared with the figures projected originally by the Government?
The original estimated number of beneficiaries was based on the best available information——
Thirty-five thousand.
——from PAYE returns. The scheme was advertised extensively and a total of 11,810 applications were received up to 4 April 1986. However, only 6,941 applicants qualified under the provisions of the scheme. Of those rejected many were not employees as defined for the purposes of the scheme, that is that they had to be working for an employer for at least 30 hours per week and the remainder were disallowed earnings in excess of the prescribed amounts. The budgetary provisions have improved the rate of supplement payable in each case in a number of ways.
When this scheme was introduced with great fanfare in 1984 were the Government aware that a similar type scheme introduced in the United Kingdom had proved to be an abject failure? In the light of events across the water did the Government here give any special consideration to rendering this scheme more attractive to applicants? I believe that the average payment made to each family was £7 per week, which would constitute poor compensation for the loss of 50 per cent of the food subsidies. I suppose it kept poor Deputy Bell's conscience happy allowing him to vote correctly at the time.
As the Deputy is aware, every effort was made to advertise the scheme, to make people aware of its provisions. Obviously the original estimated number of beneficiaries did not exist.