Denis Naughten (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent) | Oireachtas source

The Minister will probably be surprised to hear how many public servants are unaware that they are eligible to get family income supplement. I find that amazing. One individual I came across works in the private sector. As I often do, I raised the issue of family income supplement and encouraged the person to apply. Every Member should try to do that at every available opportunity. He sent me an e-mail with a photo attached from his phone. The person is working full time in a low-paid job and he had to ring during business hours when the Department is open. When he rang the Department to inquire about family income supplement he was on the phone for three hours and 12 minutes before he got to speak to someone who could advise him about family income supplement. Sadly, that is not an isolated situation. I am aware of a number of people who have found it impossible to get someone at the end of the phone in the family income supplement section. I have no doubt the officials concerned are inundated but it does not make sense that someone who is in employment should have to spend three hours and 12 minutes on the phone to get through to departmental officials to find out if they are entitled to a supplement to assist them to remain in employment. That should not happen but the case I highlight is not isolated and the situation must be addressed.

The second issue I wish to raise specifically on family income supplement is the one I raised privately with the Minister last week. The Minister has created an anomaly within the legislation before the House which discriminates against low-income families. The objective behind the proposed new section is that if someone applies for family income supplement and is let go or laid off within the 12 month period, once he or she becomes eligible again, he or she would be entitled to the remainder of the 12 months of the family income supplement. That is okay if they go back into the same employment at the same rate or higher but there is no incentive for them to take up a job at a lower rate of income because while they would be entitled to a higher rate of family income supplement were it a new application, under the rules proposed by the Minister the application will be treated as a reactivation of the existing application. Deputy O’Dea’s amendment, which was ruled out of order, is on the same basis in that it states that one should get the rate that is applicable at that point, especially if it is a higher rate.

There is a precedent for such an approach. If someone applies for the old age pension and the current rate of payment is more beneficial to them than otherwise might be the case, the person is left on the higher rate. Surely a person should have an option to go on to the higher rate if they are in a lower paid job rather than excluding them from the employment market until they get a job that pays at the same rate or a higher rate as their previous employment.

The third anomaly in terms of trying to get families back to work is the change the Minister has made to the community employment, CE, scheme. Someone on a CE scheme now pays PRSI. That was introduced in the previous social welfare Bill. The difficulty is that someone with an adult dependant and two children who has an opportunity to get on a CE scheme is better off to the tune of €5.13 a week because of the PRSI liability before one takes into account the cost of going to work or providing lunch. There is no incentive for someone in that situation to take up a CE scheme. A person with an adult dependant and two dependent children are being told by the Department not to take up a CE scheme.

It makes far more sense to get someone into a CE scheme. The scheme in my adjoining parish in Moore, County Roscommon, has an exemplary record in getting people from CE schemes back into employment. Many of them have been very successful in breaking the cycle. The type of family in question will be better off, in theory, to the sum of €5.13. That is before they pay for the fuel to get to work and pay for their lunch, however, meaning they would be financially worse off by taking up a CE scheme. That should not happen. Instead, we need to break the cycle for them and subsequent generations, and encourage people to get back into employment through CE schemes. These anomalies are barriers to that happening.

See this speech in context