asked the Minister for Labour whether he will amend the regulations dealing with social employment schemes to permit payment at the married rate to be made to a worker who marries during the course of a scheme.
52.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Social Employment Schemes.
5.
asked the Minister for Labour the reason a person (details supplied) in County Waterford who commenced work under the social employment scheme on 14 September 1987 has been asked to repay £25 per week from that date because his wife is claiming unemployment benefit which did not become operative until 17 September 1987.
66.
asked the Minister for Labour the reason a person (details supplied) in County Donegal who is married, who is on a social employment scheme and who was receiving £60 per week as his wife was working, has not had his payment increased to £85 per week, as his wife is now out of work; if the rules for the operation of the scheme will be changed to allow for a change in the status of a participant during the course of a scheme to be taken into account; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Question Nos. 5, 52 and 66 together.
The normal weekly wage payable to participants on the social employment scheme is £60. The additional allowance of £25 per week is only payable to persons who immediately before joining the scheme were in receipt of an adult dependant's allowance from the Department of Social Welfare and have a certificate to this effect from their local employment exchange.
I am conscious of the situations raised by the Deputies where a person's status changes in relation to an adult dependant during the course of participation in the scheme. I am examining the position at present, but I have to be conscious of the possible cost implications for both this scheme and the enterprise scheme. I will communicate with the Deputies as soon as possible in the matter.
Questions relating to specific individuals are a matter for day-to-day activities of FÁS and I would suggest the Deputies contact FÁS direct in the matter.
Would the Minister not accept that the present situation is very unfair and unjust to young married couples? Would he accept also that they have been landed in grave financial difficulty at the beginning of their married lives?
I have said that I am conscious of the difficulties. The Deputy might also accept that if a couple's circumstances change and, for example, the wife obtains a job during the period of the social employment scheme, the Department or FÁS would not take away the benefit. It is a case of the swings and roundabouts. It was arranged in this way from the start for a good reason. In many of these schemes voluntary and community groups had to cost a scheme for materials and labour and then try to work that scheme as best they could. Rather than changing the rates of an individual during the scheme it was decided, with much justification, that where there were pluses and minuses the situation would be left as it was. People would be left on the scale at which they begun. With 10,000, or normally 12,000, people on the social employment scheme at any one time, to make individual changes would be administratively quite difficult.
On that point, would the Minister accept that a plus for one married couple is no help in countering a minus for another couple? If the problem is administrative, surely it can be resolved by flexibility in that a marriage certificate would be accepted as being evidence to permit a change in the rates? I was impressed by the Minister's response with regard to a similar anomaly in connection with part-time firemen. I would appeal to him to do the decent thing in this case and provide, as it were, a wedding present for young couples who are affected by this outrageous and unjust anomaly.
I would love to provide wedding presents for all those involved. I will probably be happier to try to force the Department of Social Welfare to make the change if I could be equally happy that when I provided the wedding presents those from whom I could take away those amounts would own up as well. It does create some administrative difficulties.