asked the Minister for Social Welfare the difficulties encountered in determining the details of a family income supplement in 1983; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

The family income supplement scheme is designed to increase the incentive to work for persons with families who are only marginally better off working than if they were claiming social welfare benefits. This involves topping up the take-home pay of low-paid workers. The effect of this on the labour market and the various methods of control which would have to be employed to prevent abuse of the scheme were among the factors which had to be taken into account in fixing the income levels to which the supplement would be provided for different family sizes and the amounts to be provided for each family. In addition, the task of estimating the number of families who would benefit from the scheme proved to be difficult because of the absence of up-to-date income distribution data for the families concerned.

It was therefore decided to postpone the introduction of the scheme and the money thus saved was largely used to provide a special increase of 5 per cent for the long-term unemployed with effect from October 1983. It was announced in the Budget Statement of 25 January 1984 that the scheme will come into operation in November next. It is my intention that provision for the scheme will be incorporated in the forthcoming Social Welfare Bill.

Does the Minister accept that we were told here by the Minister for Social Welfare that 20,000 families would benefit when the scheme was announced on 9 February 1983? We were told at that stage that the Government had decided to implement the scheme by legislation in the near future. Six months later we were told the scheme would be introduced on 1 December 1983. Now the Minister of State says that they did not know the number of people who would benefit, that that had to be estimated and that other difficulties arose. If such difficulties were there last year they will be there this year, and does the Minister expect the House to accept that that is the reason why the scheme was not introduced in 1983? Was it a money saving device?

As I have stated, the money saved was used to provide a 5 per cent increase for long-term unemployed, with effect from October 1983. It is the intention that the scheme will be incorporated in the forthcoming Social Welfare Bill. In regard to a scheme like this, the Government should not be criticised for being ambitious or, perhaps, overambitious. It was announced in the Budget Statement of 9 February 1983. It is a completely new form of scheme and unforeseen difficulties arose in connection with getting all the required information. The Deputy may rest assured that provision for the scheme is being made.

Could the Minister tell us where the figure of 20,000 families who would benefit from this scheme came from? This figure was given to the House by the Minister for Health and Social Welfare.

That is a separate question.

That is a separate matter.

On a point of order, it is not a separate question.

The Chair rules that it is.

The Minister has told us that one of the reasons for the scheme not being implemented last year was that they were not able to estimate the number of persons who would qualify. I am asking the Minister where the figure of 20,000, quoted to this House by the Minister for Health and Social Welfare, came from. It now appears that that estimate was not correct and that the Minister did not have the relevant information.

It was an envisaged figure, bearing in mind the fact that when the statement was made the Government were in office for only about three weeks. A sincere effort was made to bring this proposal in as quickly as possible but when the scheme was examined more deeply further difficulties arose. As I say, the scheme is now to be provided for.

Would the Minister of State accept that his Minister was misleading the House, to give an envisaged figure?

No, I would not accept that at all. Envisaged figures are necessary. If one wants to work out a scheme, one must envisage a figure on which to base that scheme.

10.