A final supplementary question for Deputy Hussey.

Because Question No. 5 was taken together with Question No. 4, I have a supplementary question on Question No. 5. In view of the family income supplement part of the scheme being a component part of a package to give an incentive for low paid workers to stay at work, could the Minister tell the House how the £4 million set aside in the Coalition budget for the family income supplement is being used to give an incentive to the low paid to stay at work?

(Clare): It is being used for improvements in social welfare payments in the child allowance area.

That has the opposite effect.

In view of the fact that the group to whom the Government have given the £4 million are diametrically opposed to the group for whom it was originally intended, how can the Minister believe that giving social welfare recipients £4 million which was intended for the families of the low paid at work is an incentive for people to stay at work?

(Clare): That scheme was to be implemented on a phased basis. The number applying for the £9.50——

£9.60. The £9.50 was for ewes.

(Clare):——the £9.60, rather, was phased down to £4 where there was some tax available. Surely, there is nothing wrong with making this money available to those unfortunate enough to be on social welfare benefits? It is a good cause to which to allocate the £4 million, I would have thought.

There are many low-paid workers whose incomes are less than those of people on social welfare benefit, and even substantially less. From the figures that the Minister has given, would he not agree that the effect of this would be to deprive 20,000 families of low-paid workers of an average of £4 a week each to supplement their low earnings? Does he not agree that that is a most regressive and retrogressive step to have taken? Has he any proposals to do anything to help the families of low-paid workers who are often paid less than those on social welfare? Does he just not care about these people?

(Clare): The response, with regard to applications, was very poor under the whole scheme. It did not seem to arouse much interest among the stay-at-home wives.

It was not. It was extremely good. There were 50,000 applications.

The Minister has just said that 20,000 families of low-paid workers are involved in this.

Six quotas.

Quid pro quo.

Does the Minister suggest that it is a matter of minimal importance that there are 20,000 families being deprived of £4 a week — people who are limited to £50 to £70 a week to live on? Does the Minister consider that this is unimportant? Could I ask the Minister to ask the absent Minister to turn his attention to these people who are less well-off than social welfare benefits recipients in many cases and who work to keep themselves?

(Clare): I will bring this matter to the attention of the Minister, as the Deputy has asked.