Vol. 627 No. 3
85 Mr. Stanton asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the number of appeals processed by way of oral hearing by the social welfare appeals office in 2004 and 2005 respectively; the number of same which were decided in favour of the appellant; the number of appeals processed by the social welfare appeals office in these years and average timescale for same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37969/06]
The social welfare appeals office plays a pivotal role in ensuring welfare customers have an independent review mechanism when they are dissatisfied with a decision made by my Department and want to appeal the outcome. During 2004 some 14,000 appeals were processed, 6,000 by way of oral hearing. The equivalent figures for 2005 were 13,400 and 5,600 respectively. Favourable decisions to customers were given in 2,600 cases in 2004 and 2,500 in 2005.
The social welfare appeals process is a quasi-judicial process and it is necessary for the appeals officer to be satisfied that he has all the facts before making a decision on a case. Furthermore, the appeals officer must give the person making the appeal and the deciding officer the opportunity to make their views known on the facts of the appeal. In addition, it may be necessary to have a further examination carried out by a medical assessor of my Department where illness or disability is involved.
Oral hearings are granted at the discretion of the appeals officer, usually in circumstances where there is a conflict in the evidence presented by both parties or where an oral hearing is required by the appellant in order to present his or her case. Gathering all the evidence takes time and impacts on the speed at which appeals can be decided. Given the logistics involved in organising oral hearings, the length of time for processing appeals is increased by approximately eight weeks. Some 75% of all appeals were processed within 12 weeks in 2004 and 13 weeks in 2005. On average all appeals were cleared within 20 weeks in both 2004 and 2005.
The Department introduced a right of review in 2002 to ensure customers who received adverse decisions could have them reviewed in the light of any new evidence they brought forward. Customers whose claims are disallowed or who are otherwise dissatisfied with a decision are advised they should bring any new facts or evidence to the attention of the deciding officer in the first instance for re-examination and, if appropriate, a revised decision. They are informed this right is in addition to their right of appeal. They can seek a deciding officer review before making an appeal or can do both concurrently. The right of appeal to the social welfare appeals office remains an option if the review by the deciding officer is not fruitful.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The review process is speedier than the appeals process and in 2005, 3,300 of the appeal cases were disposed of by way of review. Improving processing times remains a major objective of the social welfare appeals office. However, it is necessary at all times to ensure progress in this regard is achieved in a manner that is not in conflict with the demands of justice and the requirement that every appeal be fully investigated and examined on its merits.
I pay tribute to the appeals office for the work it does. Does the Minister agree there is a problem with the number of cases being appealed? The problem seems to be getting worse and the numbers are increasing. The number of cases decided in favour of the appellant has also increased. Does the Minister agree that something must be done at the deciding officer stage to prevent so many cases being appealed? Is the Minister aware that over 60% of cases revised by the deciding officer or appealed in 2005 were decided in favour of the applicant? That is a high percentage. Many of these cases should not have had to go so far.
Will the Minister review the methods used by deciding officers to ensure people do not have to use the appeals process in the great numbers as is happening at present? There should not then be a delay in getting benefits to which, according to the appeals officer, people are entitled. An adjustment must be made.
What notice do deciding officers take of decisions by appeal officers? Does the appeals officer set the standard for the deciding officer? Does the Minister agree matters seem to be getting worse, not better, in this regard? More and more cases are going to the appeals office and at that stage, more of them are being decided in favour of the apellant, which indicates they should not have gone there in the first place.
There were 13,419 appeals in 2005, 47% of which had a favourable outcome for the appellant, that is, they were either fully or partially allowed or resolved by way of a revised decision on the part of a deciding officer. The same figure of 47% also applies to the previous year. A total of 41% of cases going to appeal were disallowed, which was much the same as the previous year. A further 12% were withdrawn or otherwise not pursued. Hence in 2005, of the 13,000 cases that went to appeal, 47% received a favourable result.
I can see the Deputy's point in that one can draw a couple of conclusions from such figures. For example, given such a high rate of successful appeals, one could question why one should bother going through the process at all. However, this is a quasi-judicial function and one must keep this issue in proportion. Last year, the Department received more that 1.75 million claims, most of which were fairly automatic and did not have any associated problems. However, of the 1.75 million claims, 13,000 were appealed and 47% of the latter were successful after an appeal.
This process is independent and I join the Deputy in complimenting those involved. While pressure is maintained on this issue, it is not simply a question of resources. Like any quasi-judicial case, such matters have their own timeframe. Sometimes, one is obliged to get more information from the applicant and must wait for it to become available. Similarly, one might be obliged to acquire information from financial institutions and consequently must contact and have discussions with them. Moreover, oral hearings are heard. Procedures are in place that one cannot necessarily chop too finely and it takes a matter of months before an appeal can be processed.
Will the Minister examine this issue to ascertain whether an adjustment is required, given that many appeals are turned around, and rightly so, by the appeals office? Why is the information from the applicant requested at the deciding officer stage? Why must it go to the appeals stage as the Minister suggests? Does the Minister agree that something must be done in this regard as approximately 6,000 people are put through the stress and strain of being obliged to go through the appeals office, although they should not have been obliged to do so in the first place? Moreover, this issue appears to be worsening. Will the Minister talk to his officials in the Department to ascertain what can be done to assist at the deciding officer stage?
As the Deputy is aware, a new system has been in place since 2002. I am sure he has advised constituents about it. Applicants can return to the deciding officer for a review of his or her decision if new information comes up. It is not a question of failing to consider such information. In many cases, this can speed up matters and 25% of them were resolved by way of revised decisions on the part of deciding officers. This is a fairly new device that is beginning to work and to take a number of cases out of the system much earlier. If the Deputy is asking me to keep this issue under review and ascertain whether we can continue to improve the appeals system, I will continue to do so.
86 Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if, in regard to his recent interview on a television station and subsequent press statement, he will outline the steps he will take to secure a reduction in the interest rates charged to low income families; if, in particular, he has instructed his Department to prepare legislation to make it illegal to charge exorbitant interest rates to such people; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37770/06]
88 Mr. Stanton asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs his views on the 50% increase in clients accessing the money advice and budgeting service over the past four years; if this increase is indicative of the failure of poverty strategies to address the social and financial exclusion suffered by low income groups in Irish society; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37970/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 86 and 88 together.
The money advice and budgeting service, MABS, provides assistance to people who are overly indebted and need help and advice to cope with debt problems. It is a countrywide service, delivered through 52 independent companies, and in 2006 had a total budget of more than €16 million. The number of clients seeking the assistance of the service has grown year on year. Last year, 27,000 people availed of the service compared to 18,000 in 2001. The growth in demand for the service can be attributed to the increase in the availability of credit generally in the economy and to the quality of the service provided by MABS advisers.
Since 1997, the Government has made significant inroads in tackling poverty and social exclusion. Overall expenditure on social welfare has increased from the equivalent of €5.7 billion in 1997 to a projected figure of €13.5 billion in 2006. The number of people on the live register has fallen by more than 100,000 and investment in social welfare and other social services has brought about real and lasting improvement in the living standards of the most vulnerable people in society. It is estimated that approximately 250,000 people have been lifted out of consistent poverty during the past decade. In 2004, the EU-SILC survey showed a significant reduction in the consistent poverty rate from 8.8% in 2003 to 6.8% in 2004, thus continuing a downward trend over the period since 1997. This shows that Government anti-poverty policies are working.
MABS was set up specifically to assist people who are on low incomes by providing debt and money management advice. The evidence from the new MABS information system, which has been rolled out to all MABS offices in the past year, is that the service has been particularly successful in reaching this group. To date in 2006, more than 10,000 new clients have approached the service. While approximately 52% of clients were on social welfare, a significant number of people, that is, 30%, were in employment. Most people approached MABS on their own initiative as they were aware of the service and the assistance it offered. MABS has proved successful in meeting the needs of such clients and is very well regarded by people who seek advice in managing their finances.
The issues that give rise to problems of over-indebtedness for people are highly complex. The cost and availability of credit for people on low incomes is a significant aspect of the problem. I am particularly concerned about the difficulties many people on low incomes face in accessing mainstream and cheap forms of credit.
I have announced my intention to bring proposals for legislation to provide a statutory basis for MABS before the Government shortly. The objective of this legislation will be to put in place a modern and streamlined structure that will be geared to meet the changing nature of the problems debt poses, particularly for people on low incomes. The research findings will be considered specifically in this context. Furthermore, my Department will continue its consultations with the Financial Regulator and other key interests in regard to the options available to strengthen the role of MABS in tackling the problems that arise for people on low incomes in getting access to the full range of mainstream financial services.
Last year, I met the Financial Regulator and the Combat Poverty Agency and initiated research to find out more about the nature and extent of this debt and the report will be available to the Financial Regulator shortly. I refer to the report being undertaken together by the Financial Regulator and the Combat Poverty Agency.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The regulation of money lending comes under the Consumer Credit Act 1995. The Financial Regulator has significant powers to grant or refuse licences to money lenders and a strict regime is in place to ensure compliance with the regulatory code for moneylenders. I have had discussions with the Financial Regulator about our shared concern in respect of these issues.
Following our meeting, the Financial Regulator, together with the Combat Poverty Agency, initiated research to find out more about the nature and extent of financial exclusion in Ireland, as well as the barriers faced by people on low incomes in accessing a wide range of financial services. The report will be available to the Financial Regulator shortly.
The findings of the research, together with the comprehensive statistical data now emerging from the new MABS information system, will make a significant contribution to our knowledge about the problems of debt in Ireland and the situations that leave people on low incomes vulnerable to high cost credit services.
I thank the Minister for his reply. I hope he is not creating a false dawn for many people or that he is not creating a smoke and mirrors effect. He launched a fairly strong attack, which I supported, on licensed moneylenders during a recent interview. He referred to a significant increase in those seeking help from MABS. Is he preparing legislation that would make it illegal for such licensed moneylenders to charge such exorbitant rates of interest to low income families? I refer to families that are dependent upon social welfare and low incomes. He has indicated that in one case, a legal lender charged 39% interest to people who were borrowing to pay for family events, both anticipated and unanticipated, such as first communions, bereavements and Christmas, of which we are on the cusp.
Why did the Minister's predecessor launch an attack upon MABS by taking away its facility and ability to allow such people to be given €10 to €20 per week from MABS, almost as a subsidy? It was essential for such people who were trying to get out of the grip of moneylenders. MABS played a key role in this respect, apart from the excellent work it does nationwide and for which Members salute it. Members also support the legislation to be introduced to strengthen its role and to streamline the service.
Will legislation be brought forward to curtail or restrict the rates charged to such unfortunate people by simply making it illegal to so do? Why are the financial institutions charging exorbitant rates? Has the Financial Regulator a role in this regard? Has the Minister spoken to the credit union movement — the poor person's bank? This movement has always been willing to help and might open up avenues of access for such people. It might increase the access of people on low incomes to credit when they are obliged to borrow.
I will put this another way. People who are on low incomes or on social welfare must expend what they have on basic necessities to keep themselves alive. I refer to expenditure on clothes, food, fire and fuel, after which little remains. Is the position of such people not exacerbated by the enormous increases in fuel and electricity costs? Consequently, greater numbers of such people must resort to borrowing to meet their normal demands, as well as both planned and anticipated events. Would it not be far worse if the Society of St. Vincent de Paul had not spent approximately €50 million last year helping those people with inadequate incomes? What would the situation be like if the various organisations throughout the country did not help? Are those people who charge exorbitant rates not simply preying on the vulnerable? Matters would be even worse were it not for the intervention of MABS.
A total of 46 moneylenders are licensed by the Financial Regulator. These people are allowed to charge an annual percentage rate of up to 188% for loans, payments of which are collected each week by door-to-door salesmen. Was it not this scenario that drove Tralee Credit Union to publish a few weeks ago a leaflet entitled Keep the wolves from the door this Christmas? This leaflet encouraged members of the credit union to turn to it rather than to moneylenders. Such promotions also have been run by Waterford Credit Union, Newry Credit Union, St. Francis Credit Union in Ennis and Finglas Credit Union in a bid to wean people away from moneylenders. A problem exists when all these very responsible institutions, particularly credit unions, are taking an active and positive step in this regard.
Will the Minister take steps to bring forward a promotional campaign to ensure that people are diverted away from those moneylenders who are charging exorbitant rates, particularly as we head into the month of Christmas when there are so many demands, particularly in low-income households, and people are pressurised by the strength of advertising for various toys and gadgets? Parents in such households often feel under pressure and it is surely an opportune time to step forward. Above all, is the Government not contributing to the situation in which people find themselves by increasing various forms of indirect tax, thereby diminishing the level of income available to these people and forcing them to go elsewhere to borrow money, often for necessities?
The findings of a major report entitled Do the Poor Pay More?, which was produced some time ago, and other research make it clear that poor people pay more for loans. Apart from banks, the Consumer Credit Act 1995 envisaged moneylenders as a sector. Under the Act, a person must charge a minimum of 23% to be considered a moneylender, as opposed to a financial institution or bank. The legislation does not set out any maximum limit. I instructed my officials to hold meetings with the Financial Regulator and such meetings are ongoing. I also instructed my officials to seek legal advice — that is being done — as to whether it is possible to amend the Consumer Credit Act in the forthcoming MABS legislation.
The MABS legislation will streamline MABS, give it national leadership and focus and, without interfering with the voluntary nature of MABS, which I am very keen to retain, bring a new professional national structure and leadership to the service. As this Bill travels through the Houses of the Oireachtas, I will be very anxious, if at all possible, to insert a section into it which will deal with this matter. Every time I think out loud, the Deputy opposite accuses me of doing just that, but I will probably not change my ways now.
One possibility is thrown up by the fact that the Financial Regulator grants an annual licence to every moneylender. We do not control interest rates but the Financial Regulator is allowed to take the level of interest rates into account in deciding whether to issue an annual licence. In theory at least, it is open to the Financial Regulator to decide that he does not like the rate of interest but whether this would be sufficient or would need to be combined with other matters affecting the application is the area on which I have sought advice.
I have been very transparent in this regard. I hope I do not raise people's hopes unnecessarily. At the same time, it is important that I am transparent in carrying out this kind of work. As soon as I receive very solid legal advice and we conclude our talks with the Financial Regulator, I will be able to decide whether a section can be inserted into the MABS Bill, which the Government is committed to bringing forward in the next few months, as the Deputy is aware.
If things are so good in Ireland, why are more and more people being forced to go to MABS for advice on financial and budgeting matters? Is the Minister concerned about the rising levels of personal debt? Does he agree with the consumer debt surveys carried out by the IIB Bank and ESRI in 2005 and 2006 which show that personal debt among Irish consumers increased by 11% between 2005 and 2006 to an average personal debt level, excluding mortgages, of €6,000? Is the Minister concerned about this finding?
Has the Minister any comments to make about people in employment who are forced to MABS, in other words, the working poor? Has he any figures relating to these people? Is the Government concerned about the total number of new clients who have gone to MABS — more than 10,000 this year — and that out of a total debt of €64 million, the average personal debt is over €6,000 per person? Does the Minister agree that his policies are not working? If they were working, fewer, rather than greater, numbers of people would be forced to go to MABS and fewer numbers of people would be in poverty. Yet the trend has gone the other way. Does the Minister agree that the increase in interest rates and house, gas and electricity prices, many of them Government-driven, are also having an impact? What plans does the Minister have for addressing these issues and helping these people, many of whom are young people with families who are struggling to survive?
Deputy Stanton is aware that we increased the number of units that pensioners could avail of for electricity and gas, beginning in October in the case of gas and January in the case of electricity. This move will protect pensioners against the recent increases in electricity and gas prices and is a positive step.
I agree with Deputy Penrose's comments about encouraging people to make greater use of credit unions. They are fine institutions with a very good history and wonderful integrity and I encourage people to look to them rather than to moneylenders, even those which are legal.
Deputy Stanton asked me my views about the 10,075 new people who approached MABS this year. The majority of these clients were aged between 26 and 40. They were mainly single people or single parents with children. Just over 50% of them were in receipt of a social welfare payment and 30%, or just under 3,000, were working. A high percentage of people — 70% — had no second income coming into the household. Most people had approached MABS of their own accord. As the Deputy rightly pointed out, the average personal debt is €6,000.
The Deputy's question regarding why so many people still need support or are borrowing money if we are doing so well is a good one. One could also ask why debt everywhere is increasing if the country in general is doing so well. Everyone acknowledges that the country is powering ahead. There should be no debt in the country, we should all be able to pay off our debts, if we are doing so well, but the reality is that whatever level of society or income one is at, one has commitments to meet and bills to pay. One's expectations also increase. The credit that was dealt with 20 years ago was secured to pay routine bills like electricity, gas, coal and food. By and large, the situation today is nothing like that. Some of the figures I have seen and the figures I have just quoted relate to credit card bills and loans for cars, motorcycles, bicycles and short holidays, all of which are legitimate, but people's expectations have risen.
We must proceed to the next question.
Is the Minister talking about relative income poverty?
The Deputy knows my views on this. I suppose it is relative——
We must proceed to Question No. 87.
It could be argued that fewer people should seek assistance from the MABS as the country gets richer but, as expectations increase, that is the reason more people seek assistance from it.
That is not right. It does not ring true.
It relates to credit card bills.
That is a cop out. The Minister is in denial. He has not shown any concern in his responses.
87 Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if his Department has responded, or intends to respond, to the Make Room campaign (details supplied) to end homelessness by 2010; and if he will respond to critiques made of programmes run by his Department that are meant to assist those who are homeless and in general seeking access to housing. [37771/06]
The Make Room campaign makes a number of proposals relating to rent supplements which are provided under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme. The campaign recommends that rent caps, namely the specified limits on the amount of rent that an applicant for rent supplement may incur, be reviewed to reflect the real market cost of renting. The rent limits have, in my view, a very important role in assuring that the existence of the rent supplement scheme does not artificially increase market rents. Setting rent limits higher than are justified by the market would have a distorting effect leading to a more general rise in rent levels. This in turn would worsen the affordability of rental accommodation unnecessarily, with a particular negative impact for tenants who are not in receipt of rent supplement.
The Department is reviewing the current limits at present in order to determine what limits should apply from January 2007 onwards. The review is taking account of prevailing rent levels in the private rental sector generally, together with detailed input from the Health Service Executive which administers the scheme on the market situation within each of its operational areas.
The review includes consultation with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Private Residential Tenancies Board. In addition, a number of the voluntary agencies working in this area are being consulted including those involved in the Make Room campaign. The objective of this process is to ensure that the new rent limits reflect realistic market conditions throughout the country, and that they will continue to enable the different categories of eligible tenant households to secure and retain suitable rented accommodation to meet their respective needs.
The campaign has called for a root and branch review of the rent supplement scheme. In this regard a fundamental review of all aspects of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme, including the rent supplement scheme, has recently been completed, as part of my Department's series of evaluations under the Government's expenditure review initiative. I propose to publish a report of the findings of that review shortly.
Given that the Minister has concentrated on one narrow aspect of the Make Room campaign, will he comment on the overall aim of this campaign which comprises four respected national organisations, namely, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, Threshold, the Simon Community and Focus Ireland? The basis of this campaign is a political goal to end homelessness in Ireland by 2010. I can accept the Minister would argue that tackling this problem is a matter for several Departments with responsibility in the area of direct housing provision. The campaign lists six specific goals, including responding to what people need, more and better housing, support to leave homelessness, renting on a low income, proper standards on renting and tackling poverty and preventing homelessness. I argue that direct responsibility for achieving four of those six goals comes under the work of his Department, in particular the goal of tackling poverty and preventing homelessness. This campaign and these organisations request that all Government policies be poverty proofed. I was under the impression this was meant to be a goal of Government policy making as a result of partnership agreements but the making of that request by these organisations, which are involved in meeting the needs of those of our citizens who are going without basic needs such as housing, seems to indicate it is not.
In concentrating on one particular area, namely people on low income who rent, the Minister seems to have set his face against reviewing the rent caps, which according to the organisations involved need to reflect the real market cost of renting. We will have to wait and see whether his review achieves that.
The Minister might also respond to other requests made by this campaign. One request is that rent supplement be paid in advance rather than in arrears because those who choose to rent and have to rent under the rent supplement scheme are put at a disadvantage to those who have to pay money upfront. Other requests include the extension of the rent supplement scheme to people working more than 30 hours a week on a means-tested basis and a root and branch review of rent supplement scheme to ensure adequate support is in place to meet housing costs for those in social housing and private rented accommodation.
I put it to the Minister that a fairly questionable statistic or lack of statistic arose during recent questioning of a value for money report on the rent supplement scheme at a meeting of the Committee of Public Accounts. Some 40% of all rents are paid by the State in the form of the rent supplement, but there seems to be no co-ordination in regard to many of the new apartments built under section 23 funding, which have benefited twice through tax reliefs by way of the money invested in building the apartments and rent achieved subsequently from them. There is no joined-up Government thinking between the Revenue Commissioners, the Department of Finance and the Department of Social and Family Affairs to address the fact that some developers here get a treble benefit from the State, while those in need of housing are being left to one side. We see gross enrichment of developers because of the need to house many of our citizens.
I join the Deputy in complimenting the Make Room organisation and its component organisations. I have no difficulty with their objectives and what they want to achieve. We are making good solid progress in that direction generally.
On the question of rent caps, I concentrated on the rent supplement scheme because, I suspect, the question is also tabled to other Departments and I chose to deal with the part of it that referred to my Department, namely the rent supplement scheme.
I have rehearsed the argument here for being cautious about increasing the cap. If we account for 40%, or almost that percentage, of the rental market in the State and if we set the figure too high, we will drag up rents; and if we set the figure too low, we will not do enough for the people who need our support for rent supplement. Therefore, we have to set it at a figure that is practical and almost ensure there is tension in this respect to ensure we do not drag up figures in the market. All the evidence and advice available to me suggests we must set the figure at a very practical level to prevent our being a market leader and leading the rents upwards.
The current limits are being reviewed for January next. In setting them, we will take into account the points made by the Deputy. We are examining the possibility of setting them in a much more regional sense. Rents in one area are different from those in another. We will probably fine tune them substantially around regions and take account of the type of people involved. For example, single male accommodation is a particular problem area.
The Deputy's point about linking tax relief under section 23 to the State's need in this area is an interesting idea. The Government has not approached the issue on that basis. I do know whether rent relief could be restricted as to the eventual use of a property. I doubt if we could say that one could only have a 23% tax break on a property provided it is used by a local authority or by the State. I have not considered that proposal but it is an interesting thought. Off the top of my head, it seems fraught with all sorts of legal difficulties in terms of specifying that a property must be used for that purpose. I encourage the Deputy to advance the idea to see if it can be bottomed out and whether there is any room for its progression. Tax breaks are currently available to developers for a range of properties and the State enters the market in terms of securing accommodation and constructing its own properties.
89 Mr. Crowe asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if he proposes to introduce reforms to the family income supplement regarding the eligibility criteria, the amount of the payment, and the way he now intends to increase its low uptake. [37931/06]
Family income supplement is designed to provide support for people on low earnings with child dependants and provide the incentive for them to remain in, or take up, employment. Recent improvements to family income supplement include the change of assessment from a gross income basis to net income, the increase to €20 per week in the minimum payment and, in budget 2006, the refocusing of income thresholds to include additional gains for larger families. This resulted in increased payments of between €11.40 and €169.20, depending on earnings and family size.
In addition to significant increases for families on FIS, other reforms include substantial increases in each budget to child benefit rates which directly benefit 1 million children. Approximately 80,000 families benefit from the €40 per child increase in the back to school clothing and footwear allowance. More than 350,000 children qualified for the €1,000 a year early child care supplement, one third of whom are children of lone parents and 41,000 child care places were created since 2000 under the equal opportunities child care programme.
With regard to the level of take-up on FIS, it is not possible to estimate with certainty from administrative sources the number of families which may be eligible but do not apply for their FIS entitlements. However, research undertaken by the ESRI in 1997, based on the results of the Living in Ireland survey, suggested at that time that fewer than one in three potentially eligible claimants had made a claim and been awarded payment of FIS. Since those with a higher entitlement are more likely to avail of the scheme, the take-up in expenditure terms was then estimated to be somewhat higher, at between 35% and 38% of potential expenditure.
To establish an up-to-date view of the factors influencing the level of FIS take-up, my Department will commission a specific research project with the objective of designing and undertaking a proactive take-up campaign for a sample of parents who may have earnings within the FIS income thresholds. The project will also examine whether access barriers exist and, if so, how they can be addressed.
In addition, it will assess whether alternative mechanisms to enhance take-up of FIS can be implemented and whether access to the scheme can be improved. To ensure families are made aware of the FIS scheme generally and of recent improvements in particular, my Department undertook a nationwide awareness campaign recently to promote and encourage a greatly increased take-up of FIS for working families on low incomes.
I was very pleased with the response to the campaign as a total of 10,357 new FIS applications were received in the first nine months of this year compared with 5,489 for the corresponding period in 2005.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
As of last Friday, 11 November, 21,427 customers were in receipt of FIS compared with 16,356 this time last year. This increase in the numbers of persons receiving FIS is a positive development and we will build on it to ensure families eligible for FIS are encouraged to apply for the scheme and every opportunity is taken to promote awareness of the benefits of the scheme.
I thank the Minister for his reply. The only part of the question not answered was on whether he proposes to increase the amount of the family income supplement. Many people consider that, through FIS, the State subsidises employers who pay low wages while others consider it a support for people on low wages. Does the Minister accept that having a job in itself is not a guarantee that one lives in a poverty-free household? Approximately 14% of households in poverty are headed by people in low-paid employment. Therefore, it is imperative schemes such as this are taken up.
The Minister can assist the working poor by increasing the thresholds of the family income supplement and I again ask him to do so. Did the Minister examine the eligibility criteria? It is part of the question. One of my constituents job-shares and works 35 hours over two weeks. She receives €530 per month but she is short three hours' work per week to qualify for FIS, which requires 19 hours work per week. She pays €50 per week for child care. Does the Minister accept that flexibility could be introduced for people such as this? The woman also pays for fuel, food, mortgage, maintenance on the house and transport to and from work. She does not have much money for herself and her family.
The Minister said that take-up of the scheme is extremely low. I welcome the higher take-up in Dublin detailed by the Minister in his reply. Many people consider we have two approaches to this matter. The Department chases those who owe it money from welfare over-payments, and rightly so, but the same energy is not used to chase those owed money.
Many people in low-income jobs come from low educational backgrounds. Perhaps part of the reason for low take-up of the scheme is that people are not aware of it. As well as advertising the scheme, a proactive campaign by the Department is also necessary. Perhaps the Department will telephone those workplaces where people are on low incomes and inform the wages clerk or the workers that the money is available.
In many cases people are frightened to take up FIS because they fear they may upset their employers or that they will lose a different benefit. With publicising the scheme, all those fears, imagined or otherwise, must be addressed.
Family income supplement is an important scheme. It is targeted as it supports families on low incomes. In answer to the Deputy's question on increasing the supplement, we made strong moves on the family income supplement in almost every budget. We will certainly consider making similar improvements in the coming budget. I am committed to the scheme and hope to continue to improve the number of people taking it up and the amount of the benefit.
To qualify for FIS one must be in full-time employment, work at least 19 hours per week, have at least one child and have an average weekly income of below the designated income threshold for the family. Last year the threshold for a family of three children increased from €497 to €565 per week and that for a family of four children increased from €522 to €630 per week. This allowed 21,000 people to apply for FIS. The scheme cost the Exchequer €106 million this year and it is a major instrument.
We will continue to improve thresholds and will examine re-running the publicity campaign we held last year which brought in 10,000 new FIS applicants. As more and more people become aware of how the scheme works, the numbers availing of it increase substantially.
