asked the Minister for Labour his views on whether there is an element of discrimination in relation to situations where a married man participating on a social employment scheme is entitled to the single person's rate in respect of same without any allowance for dependent children while his wife, who is in receipt of social welfare, is entitled to a single person's allowance with only half the rate for the dependent children.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Social Employment Scheme.
2.
The normal weekly wage payable to participants on the social employment scheme is £60, with an additional allowance of £25 payable to persons who, immediately prior to joining the scheme, were in receipt of an adult dependant's allowance from the Department of Social Welfare and were certified to that effect. Allowances for child dependants are not payable under the scheme. However, individuals are free to work for the remainder of the week without loss of wage.
As I said to the Dáil on 10 March in response to a question on the social employment scheme, he has undertaken to review the level of payments under all employment schemes. In the context of limited Exchequer resources, any increase in the level of allowances would, of course, mean that fewer people can be accommodated on programmes.
Payment of social welfare allowances is a matter for the Minister for Social Welfare.
Will the Minister agree, allowing for the fact that resources are limited and the danger of reduced numbers in the scheme, that this represents a classic example of the doubleedged sword? Will he accept that there is most unfair discrimination and severe hardship being imposed on people? I should like to point out to the Minister that 18 months ago a married person who qualified for the social employment scheme was eligible for £85 per week and if the spouse was on disability or unemployment benefit they could qualify for the child dependant's allowance. Now. if a married man with three children applies for benefit under the social employment scheme he receives the single man's rate of £60 per week while his spouse receives £18 representing a net loss of £43 per week. Will the Minister agree that that cannot be justified?
I should like to quote an example which is the best way to respond to the Deputy's questions. That example is of a husband and wife with two dependent children. On social welfare the husband would get £32.50 and the wife would get £32.50, half of the married rate, and the two children £19.20, making a total of £84.20. That is the long-term unemployed urban rate. Under the SES there will be a payment of £60 per week plus £37.80 unemployment assistance for a wife and £9.60, half the child dependant rate, making a total of £107.40. Under social welfare a husband and wife and two dependent children would receive £84.20 while under the SES they will receive £107.40.
Will the Minister agree that in this case he is comparing social welfare and social welfare against social welfare and the social employment scheme? In real terms, as distinct from 15 or 18 months ago, there is a loss of £43 a week. Surely there is a case for one of two compromises — either give the social employment scheme applicant, the married person, the full married rate or else give the spouse, the wife in this case, the full child dependant allowance.
The Minister's policy in relation to allowances is that no one should lose financially by participating in the programme. That is the policy which the Minister has outlined in the House on previous occasions and this is taken into account by the FÁS placement officers. As I have said, increases in the allowances, when finances are limited, relate directly to a reduction in the number of people who can participate.
I appreciate that the Minister present is answering on behalf of his colleague and my question to him is couched accordingly. Would he not agree that unless the balance of the gap between the level of payment to participants in all the employment schemes, including the social employment scheme, and the recipients of long-term social welfare benefits, particularly unemployment assistance, is maintained in constant terms, the attractiveness of the scheme will be reduced? In the Minister's reply he seemed to imply that the amount of money is fixed and that any proposal to increase the rate of payment for participants in the scheme would result in a reduction of the numbers. Surely, as a member of the Cabinet, the Minister recognises that there would be compensating savings on the Social Welfare Vote that would more than justify and offset the increases in the allowances.
I do not wish to mislead the Deputy in any way. The position is as I have outlined in the reply. The Minister has indicated, and I am repeating it here today, that he is reviewing the level of payments under all employment schemes. Of course it would be desirable, in as far as funds are available, to ensure that the maximum amount possible will be paid. It is the Minister's intention to ensure that there is no big differential——
A final question. I want to make some progress on other questions also.
Does the Minister have available to him information as to when that review of the levels of payment will be completed? Will it be co-ordinated with the increases in the long term rates of social welfare payments?
The Minister had a recent meeting with the trade movement on this issue and he undertook to review the level of payments under the scheme. In particular he wants to secure some linkage between the schemes and the social welfare compensation rates. The question of paying an allowance for dependent children would also be part of that review. I cannot say at this stage how quickly that review will be completed but I assume it will be completed as soon as possible.