asked the Minister for Labour if he will change the Social Employment Scheme regulations which require applicants to be in receipt of unemployment assistance payments in order to qualify, as they discriminate against married women seeking to return to the workforce.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Social Employment Scheme.
5.
The Social Employment Scheme was designed specifically to assist older recipients of social welfare payments who were long-term unemployed and on the basis that it would be part-funded out of the savings arising on social welfare payments. To admit persons not in receipt of unemployment compensation would increase the net Exchequer cost of the scheme and lead to a reduction in the number of participants.
Therefore, I have no proposals to make the change suggested by the Deputy.
The Minister will be aware that I raised this question previously. I intend to continue to do so until I receive a more positive response. Would the Minister confirm that there is in the region of 14,000 people who are signing on, who are not in receipt of unemployment assistance of any kind? Furthermore, would he agree that excluding them from participation in the social employment scheme shows, at the very least, indirect discrimination against them? In addition, is he aware that 9,000 of those 14,000 are women who are effectively precluded from any possibility of re-entering the workforce through the provisions of the Social Employment Scheme?
The Deputy's figure is correct. On the establishment of the Social Employment Scheme it was decided to use the social welfare criteria — that is registration on the live register and those in receipt of UA or UB in order to identify those most in need. There also arises compensatory savings vis-à-vis the social welfare budget. Deputies will be aware from questions tabled in recent months that there are more than sufficient people to fill the quota in that category. Of course I admit that it is unfortunate that not all of these people can avail of the provisions of the scheme. There are limited resources. Therefore, the arrangement is that, if a person avails of the provisions of the social employment scheme, compensatory savings must be achieved on the social welfare budget. That has been the criterion applied to the operations of the scheme from the beginning and continues to be so. We and the previous Government endeavoured on several previous occasions to obtain European social funding on a higher ratio for employment schemes. The view of the Commission and of other EC countries is that this is not strictly a job-orientated scheme in the strict sense of the term. Therefore, they are unwilling to pay any compensatory amounts in respect of such a scheme. Deputies will see that it presents a financial difficulty.
I appreciate that it poses a financial difficulty. The reality of how it affects people is that they are automatically excluded from participating in the social employment scheme because they are not in receipt of any money at all in the form of unemployment assistance. I contend that that constitutes an unfair discrimination against such people.
Let us have a brief and relevant supplementary question.
Would the Minister not accept that the provisions of that scheme operate unfairly, that they should be reviewed and that this type of discrimination should be eliminated?
They are excluded, but the effect of doing what the Deputy wishes would mean that there would be fewer people in the scheme. The average in the scheme at any one time for the first six months of this year was in the region of 11,300. If less money was available there would be fewer people in the scheme, and that is the difficulty.
I am not asking the Minister to take every one of these 14,000 people into the social employment scheme. I am asking that they be given the right to apply and be considered for the scheme in the same way as everybody else who is signing for unemployment assistance or benefit.
There would be no compensatory saving in social welfare contributions and that is the reason why that cannot happen.
Question No. 6, please.
Has the Minister any plans to change the present social employment scheme in any way?
In conjunction with the unions and the management committees I am considering some changes for 1989.
Let us now deal with Question No. 6.