Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I find the numbers interesting, as there were 57,000 recipients in 2016, and 47,000 recipients in 2022, which is a decrease. To me, the decrease seems to have been caused by increased wages or salaries that people are paid. The scheme seems to have a good scope and I am curious to learn whether, when budget 2024 was being prepared, there was a projection as to how many people would be covered. As I said earlier, this is a really positive scheme as it helps people to work and encourages them to avail of employment. I understand that once a person is accepted on to the scheme he or she stays on it for a year no matter what happens his or her salary and, therefore, it is a good incentive. The figures tell us that this scheme is not running away from us. In fact, the scheme has gone the other way in cost terms up to 2022 and I do not have figures beyond that.

Was consideration given to the following point? The scheme is called the working family payment but we take a very liberal view of a family unit now. Can we consider singles as a family? In other words, there is a lot of talk. I do not like the untidy thing of picking out artists and saying they get the basic wage but a person who happens to be a carpenter does not get a basic wage. To me, it seems contradictory to pick out one section of society. I would rather do social welfare in the way that it has always been done, which is on a universal basis. While I believe the application of a basic wage concept would be very complex, the beginning of that is this scheme and reform of the means-testing of people who are on jobseeker's allowance etc. in order that we move towards the concept that it always pays significantly to work, whether it is self-employed or employed working. The Minister will know that I have had a hang-up about this because I have worked with it for too long prior to getting into politics and saw the inhibitions on people trying to progress of means-testing, where they feel they are jumping up and somebody is pulling them down and that they will be supported as long as they stay down. I am curious about that and wonder whether it was ever thought to say any person who is on a low income would get a supplement, or call it what you want, rather than always confining it to people who have got families.