asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he intends to end an anomaly whereby persons employed on social employment schemes, although paying tax and PRSI, are not eligible for family income supplement; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

138.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will allow participants on social employment schemes to qualify for family income supplement payments.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 16 and 138 together.

The social employment scheme, SES, is aimed at providing part time employment to assist unemployed people, particularly the long term unemployed, to re-enter the labour market. The purpose of the family income supplement scheme, FIS, on the other hand, is to create an incentive for full time workers with families, who are in low paid employment, to remain at work. Its purpose is essentially different from the SES and to extend entitlement to FIS to persons on the SES would involve fundamental changes in the FIS scheme.

Allowances under the SES scheme are payable at a standard rate of £65 for a single person and £92 for a person with an adult dependant. Improvements to the scheme, which were announced recently, have extended a dependant allowance of up to £10 per child to SES participants. As a result of this change, all SES participants now receive a payment which is in excess of their entitlements under the unemployment assistance scheme. For example, an SES participant with an adult dependant and three child dependants will now receive a total allowance of £122 per week, as against an entitlement under long term unemployment assistance of £107 per week. This represents a substantial improvement in the situation of SES participants with two or more child dependants, who previously received less than their UA entitlement.

In addition, SES participants are free to engage in other work or activities during their time off. Such earnings have no effect on their payment from the SES.

In the light of the improved situation of SES participants with families, the payment of FIS, in addition to child dependant allowances is not considered necessary.

The Minister in his reply indicated that the main purpose of the family income supplement scheme is to keep people in work. In his report to the Minister's Department, Dr. Blackwell indicated that when social welfare incomes get very close people tend to opt for social welfare. Would the Minister not accept that a person in any employment on an income of £65 or £92 per week, plus allowances for dependants, and engaged in the same number of hours of work as a person on the social employment scheme would qualify for family income supplement on every other grounds?

This question was examined by the Government fairly recently. As a result of this examination, it was considered that the most appropriate thing to do, which would be of most benefit to the family, would be to provide £10 per child to people on the social employment scheme. This decision was arrived at by the ministerial committee on employment. I am aware it was announced following the tabling of the Deputy's question but I think the Deputy would agree that this goes a long way towards meeting the basic requirement as seen by the Deputy. This would be a more efficient and effective way of dealing with that problem. It is a major step and it will have a big influence on social employment scheme participants as we head towards next year.

I accept that the decision announced by the Minister for Labour represents an improvement in the scheme but is it not the case that the groups representing the unemployed did not seek that kind of improvement but rather inclusion in the family income supplement scheme? The arguments they put are relevant. In every way under the terms of the scheme, apart from the fact they are on a social employment scheme, they qualify for the family income supplement. Would he not consider bridging the gap and allow them qualify for family income supplement in view of the fact that they pay tax and PRSI just like any other worker?

I have explained to the Deputy the decision which has been taken. It is a major step. It was arrived at following the deliberations of the ministerial committee at which different Ministers looked at the matter to identify the best step that could be taken at this time. It was felt that this decision would go towards meeting the situation. I believe it does and will prove very beneficial. As a matter of interest, both moves were recommended by different groups of people.

We are still waiting for you, Minister.

Would the Minister agree that people going on these SES schemes or courses believe for all intents and purposes they are taking up a serious job and that many people are ignorant of the fact that the FIS scheme does not apply to them? Even with the payment of £10 per child, they are still at a marked disadvantage. The only real solution would be to give those on SES schemes and those on FÁS courses the same benefits which are given to low income groups. Finally, is the Minister aware that not only are they ineligible for the FIS supplement but many of them have lost their medical cards? For example, a single man is allowed to earn £65 under the SES scheme——

The Deputy is going into a lot of extraneous matter.

In fact under the means test and under the health board he should only be allowed earn £62 per week.

That is a separate question. We are concerned with improvements in the schemes we operate. The improvements which we make are often taken into consideration by either the local authorities or the health boards. However, in relation to family income supplement for instance, we have succeeded in getting some of the health boards not to take that into account as income for assessment for medical cards.

17.