asked the Minister for Labour if he will amend the regulation which prohibits participants on social employment scheme from being reemployed, except in certain circumstances, on a further social employment scheme within a 12 month period of their earlier participation.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Social Employment Scheme Participants.
5.
I do not propose to change the regulations which limit a person's participation on the social employment scheme to 12 months. To do so would result in fewer long-term unemployed getting a chance to participate in the scheme. Also, it is not desirable that a scheme which was set up to provide one year's temporary placement should become a means of providing funding for permanent or quasi-permanent posts.
Would the Minister not concede that we have every right to feel disappointed with his reply in view of the fact that the initial break involved was one week, shortly afterwards it was extended to one month and now there is a required break in employment for a period of a year before a person can be re-employed? In view of the fact that many people have enjoyed the dignity of work and been reinvigorated by it, are anxious to go back to work and there is so much work to be done and so many people to do it surely the Minister can bring in this minor accommodation to ensure that people can get back into useful employment within a relatively short period of time?
The first point is that the break was always for a year. You had to be unemployed for a year before you could go on to this scheme——
On a point of order, under the aegis of Deputy Enda Kenny the break was for one week, it was then extended to one month and it has been gradually extended to one year.
I do not want to contradict the Deputy but I understood it was always a year, and the reason for this was the very point made by the Deputy. The social employment scheme, which is the main scheme for the long-term unemployed, was to invigorate people and motivate them to get back to work. There are a great number of people in the long-term unemployed category— unfortunately there are over 100,000 — and all of those would be entitled, if they so wished, to participate in the social employment scheme. There are around 10,600 places on the social employment scheme. If people were allowed to have extensions all of the time it would change the nature of fairly low paid employment — it is only for two and a half days — and make it permanent. It would add to the low paid work and we do not wish to do that. There was a good agreement with the Congress of Trade Unions that people would go into that scheme and go out again. However, there are some exceptions in areas where one cannot get suitable people. The only area where we have allowed this is on the islands where they cannot get other people. Other than that there are always additional people.
Would the Minister not acknowledge that the margin of income between somebody on social welfare and somebody on a social employment scheme is so minimal that it would make good sense to employ somebody at a marginally higher income than on the previous level of social welfare and that therefore, a remodification or amendment should be looked at in this context? Would the Minister not also acknowledge that the placement offices with the National Manpower Service, that is FÁS, are inundated with people who are only too anxious to get back onto a scheme whereby they can be employed again?
Deputy Higgins raised that point with me before. We have got approval from the Department of Finance where people coming off the social employment scheme may now qualify for the employment incentive scheme without having to return to the live register. This does help. If an employer wishes to recruit a person he can employ him straight from the social employment scheme. Under the old system those people would have had to revert to the register and then onto the social employment scheme. This is an improvement.
I want to bring in Deputy Michael Finnucane.
With the cutbacks in local authorities this has been a fairly successful scheme. However, there is an anomoly. Would the Minister not agree that in areas where there are abandoned footpaths, etc., it would be of benefit if the local authorities were allowed to place those individuals on specific schemes? I would appreciate if the Ministerf would address this point.
I will look at that point for the Deputy. Normally if there is a big divergence it is looked at because the new people being taken on will have to have 52 weeks employment. That is the reason for the difficulty. Any individual coming off the register who goes on a social employment scheme must be guaranteed 52 weeks employment. Our experience is that many people who get back into the work ethic obtain jobs. I will look at that aspect.