asked the Minister for Labour if he will ensure that employees working on the social employment scheme will get a double week's pay at Christmas 1988; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Christmas Bonus.
14.
Participants on employment schemes have not in the past been paid a Christmas bonus. I do not propose to make an exception this year. Making a Christmas payment for social employment scheme participants of course, would have to be at the expense of the numbers on the scheme.
Would the Minister agree that refusal to pay a double week's pay at Christmas acts as a disincentive to many people to participate in the scheme because, were they not participants in the scheme and in receipt of other social welfare benefits, they would qualify for a double week's pay? Would he agree that it is particularly unfair to people with families?
The difficulty is I have not got the necessary resources. It may put them at a disadvantage for that week. However, the Deputy should remember that the social employment scheme runs for 52 weeks. Therefore, while it may place such people at a disadvantage for that week, they will make up for it over the remaining period.
The Minister must be aware that the difference between what a person receives as a participant in the social employment scheme and the amount they would receive assuming they were eligible for full benefit is very small indeed. Would he agree that it is very unfair to those who would otherwise qualify? Would the Minister not consider even making the allowance available to those participants in the scheme with families?
Unfortunately there are not the resources available to do so. It depends on the individual. I would agree with the Deputy that there are some cases in respect of which the differential between what one might receive as a participant in the social employment scheme and social welfare benefit is very little. In fact there might well be one or two people who would lose money but for the vast majority of people in receipt of unemployment assistance, there is a fair difference between the two figures.
Would the Minister not consider allowing it for those people with spouses and families?
Unfortunately there are no resources with which to do so. While I would have some sympathy with having a link between social welfare benefit and participants in the scheme, the present scheme does not permit such linkage. There is no link between what is paid to participants in the social employment scheme and social welfare payments. Therefore there is no possibility of giving any increase in 1988.