Vol. 392 No. 8
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason he will not allow unemployment assistance to be paid to an unemployed person (details supplied) in County Cork who at the age of 32 has completed his leaving certificate and who has been accepted for a computer course in Cork Regional College and who wishes to complete same so that he can get a job to provide for himself, his wife and six children; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
23.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will outline the progress to date of the educational opportunities scheme; if he will make particular reference to the case of persons (details supplied) in County Cork where acceptance into the scheme was later followed by withdrawal of unemployment assistance and the reason he is not prepared to extend the scheme to include those who succeed in being accepted for places at third level.
40.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason for this failure to extend the educational opportunities scheme beyond the pilot areas and his failure to make regulations allowing other courses and voluntary work schemes to qualify; and the proposals, if any, he has to extend the scheme nationwide to include third-level courses.
I propose taking Questions Nos. 4, 23 and 40 together. The educational opportunities scheme was launched on a pilot basis at two centres at Tallaght and Limerick. The pilot scheme provided an opportunity to long-term unemployed persons aged 25 years or over to further their education while still receiving a weekly allowance equivalent to their unemployment payment. In 1988 I reduced the qualifying age to 23 years. The courses, which covered second level education only, included both intermediate and leaving certificate subjects and ran for the normal academic year. The vocational education committees in the two pilot areas arranged the classes under the scheme.
A professional evaluation of the pilot scheme during its first cycle found it to be very worth while. Participants found that it gave a boost to their morale and improved their job prospects.
On 27 September 1989 the Government introduced the vocational training opportunities scheme to replace the educational opportunities scheme. This new scheme which will also be provided by the vocational education committees will be available in 12 centres around the country including Tallaght and Limerick. The scheme provides long-term unemployed persons over the age of 21 with the opportunity to do a full time education and training course leading to a leaving or other certificate such as City and Guilds. About 240 places in all are available in the 12 centres. It is intended to expand the network of centres progressively throughout the country. The 12 centres are, Cork, Tralee, Galway, Bray, Clondalkin, Tallaght, Waterford, Sligo, Athlone, Dún Laoghaire, Finglas and Limerick. Participants will receive a weekly allowance from the vocational education committees equivalent to their unemployment payments. Travel and lunch allowances may also be payable. Recruitment for the new scheme which is being organised by the adult education organisers of the VECs and the managers of my Department's local offices in the chosen centres is already well under way. A number of classes have already started.
In relation to facilities for the unemployed to participate in other educational activities, I took power in the Social Welfare Act, 1989 to deem persons to be available for work or to exempt them from the requirement to be available for work in certain circumstances, thereby safeguarding their entitlements to unemployment payments. Regulations giving effect to those provisions are at an advanced stage of preparation and I hope to be in a position to make an announcement shortly. It is my intention to allow long-term unemployed persons participate in second level education courses and also in projects under community enterprise programmes. The position in relation to third level education courses is also being examined.
As regards the first of the questions from Deputy O'Keeffe, the person concerned claimed and was paid an unemployment payment from 12 April 1988 to September 1989. During this period he was given approval to study for the leaving certificate which he obtained. In September 1989 he informed the local office that he had been accepted for and intended to commence a full time two year computer studies course at the Regional Technical College in Cork. His case was referred for determination to a deciding officer who disallowed his claim on the grounds that he was not available for work due to his participation in the full time computer course at the regional college. He was advised of his right to appeal the decision and was given an appeal form. To date he has not lodged an appeal against the disallowance.
It is understood that the person in question is now in receipt of supplementary welfare allowance in respect of his wife and family, plus a mortgage subsidy. When the regulations I have referred to have been made — as I have said, I expect these to be ready shortly — I will arrange to have his claim reviewed.
Both individuals referred to by Deputy O'Keeffe in his second question were in receipt of unemployment assistance at the employment office, Kinsale. Both commenced a secretarial course in the local VEC technical college in September 1989. Unfortunately, neither of the two sought advance approval from the Department as regards their continuing entitlement to unemployment assistance. When the situation came to light, the claims of both persons were suspended pending examination of whether they satisfied the availability condition. If it is established that the course is part time and that they will be able to satisfy the availability condition while pursuing the course, their claims will be allowed and payment restored. If not, their claims will be examined within the context of the new regulations.
I should like the Minister to confirm to the House that despite this scheme being set up in 1986 up to two weeks ago only those lucky enough to live in Limerick or Tallaght had any opportunity of availing of the scheme. In fact, I wonder if this matter had not been raised in Question Time would we have seen an expansion of the scheme at the end of September? Will the Minister outline to the House why it was impossible to get these schemes in operation in advance of the academic year? It is difficult enough for unemployed people to get back into education but doing so three months into an academic year lasting eight months is totally tying their hands behind their back. I ask the Minister to tell us why the delay? What is the reason for his hesitation in extending this opportunity to all repeat leaving certificate students or second level courses run by the VECs throughout the country? Why is the scheme still limited to certain areas of the country?
To take the last question first, the regulations will give me power to designate particular courses if some person has the facility to attend such courses. It is a much more flexible, open arrangement and obviously since it is so open it has financial and other implications which have to be borne in mind when the regulations are agreed finally.
With regard to the first scheme, I announced earlier I had approval from the Government to release people and pay them their unemployment payments. The second aspect is providing courses, teachers and so on. Apparently the approximate cost of the courses just established is about £1.6 million. There are two aspects with regard to the costs: there is the cost at my end which we have spoken about frequently here and for which I have made arrangements but there is also the question at the education end of providing additional resources. Some of the courses were up and running; there was an extra one in Limerick and one in Tallaght before the extension was put into operation. Incidentally, it had nothing to do with today's Question Time and I am sorry to disappoint the Deputy on that point. It had more to do with getting the whole matter operating nationwide. The Minister for Education hopes and plans to go further with this scheme to include more centres. There are two elements: the scheme is functioning and people are participating. The second aspect is the wider question of participating in a variety of courses and that will be covered by regulations that will be available shortly.
May I appeal for brevity, please. I want to dispose of as many questions as possible but we are making very little progress today.
The Minister has known for some time of the difficulties existing in relation to providing the centres by the Department of Education. In view of the fact that he took powers under last year's Social Welfare Bill, why did he delay moving in an area that is much more under his control, which is designating existing courses for approval? Can he give us a specific time when the regulations will be available? Why is he hesitating in including third level courses which we believe should be open to the unemployed——
We cannot debate this matter today and let us understand that. I remind the House this is Question Time.
I should like to point out that the age limit has been reduced from 25 years to 21 years and that has major implications in terms of the numbers and the kind of people who can participate in the scheme. The fact remains that you must have a course somewhere.
What about the VECs?
Yes, if an individual VEC is prepared to provide the course free to the individual or in a way that the individual will have enough money to participate in the course. That is covered by the general regulations that will be available shortly. The other aspect is of getting a sufficient number of courses functioning throughout the country and getting teachers involved — that is a matter for the Department of Education. There are 13 courses in progress in 12 centres.
I have two questions I want to deal with separately. The first is the Tom Dollard case from Bandon——
I would prefer if names were not mentioned.
I merely wanted to differentiate between the two cases. There is no objection to the facts of the case being known. In fact, it might help to get some sensible decisions from the Departments. In relation to that matter, will the Minister accept that this case proves conclusively how ludicrous it is to put obstacles in the way of unemployed people pursuing educational courses so that they may get qualifications leading to job opportunities? Further, will he accept this is a classic case where the Minister, who now has the power under the Act, should use that power immediately, taking into account the circumstances of the person concerned. This involves a drop in family income from £147 per week to £102 per week, a willingness on his own part to pay the RTC fees of £395, a willingness to pay travelling expenses to the RTC which cost about £22 per week——
Again, I appeal for brevity. Some 25 minutes have elapsed and we have not yet disposed of four questions.
Will the Minister agree that someone who is prepared, with the agreement of his wife and family, to make this sacrifice, who has had to sell some household items and who has borrowed £1,000 from the bank, should be given the utmost consideration? Should not the Minister immediately use the power he has and allow this man to do this course so that he can get a job?
No, I would not accept many of those statements. First, the gentleman in question applied for and was granted the period for the leaving certificate. The question now arising relates to higher level education and that will have to be considered in the context of regulations. As the Deputy has said, the family income has been reduced from £147 per week to £102 per week, plus another £25 but that is a separate matter.
That was available before for mortgage subsidy.
It is still available.
The drop in income is £45 per week and that was the point I was making.
The person in question was invited to appeal the case but has not done so to date.
He has been told he cannot get in under the regulations.
The question that arises for the deciding officer is that of availability for work. Previously the person concerned made the case that he was available for work if work came along and the deciding officer decided he could be regarded as available for work under existing regulations.
He cannot get work.
I would point out to the Deputy that the amounts of money are quite substantial. If this were to be made available to 1,000 people we must consider the costs——
We could get people off the dole.
The costs could be considerably greater and other difficulties may arise in that connection. All that must be considered in the context of the regulations because we are interpreting how far and how wide that can go at third level.
He is willing to meet those costs——
There is a cost involved because you are setting down a cost for social welfare for the next two years.
He is paid if he stays and does not attend any course——
Anybody can do that——
——he does not get a job, but if he completes the course he can get a job.
Anybody over 21 can say they wish to go back to university but this does not strictly come under the terms of the Department. That is part of the difficulty. It is a question of what is his position under the ESF, under education grants and what allowances are being made by third level institutions to provide for people like that. In that sense it is a question of how much should be done under social welfare and under our legislation and how much should be done elsewhere. That matter is being considered in the context of the regulations.
Does the Minister not——
The House will accept that we have devoted an inordinate amount of time to these questions and we have only reached the first question to this Minister. He is taking three questions together——
Yes, but he did not reply to one of them.
I want to make progress. I have asked for brevity and I am not getting co-operation.
You will get it.
I will call the Deputy, then Deputy De Rossa and a final question from Deputy Flaherty if they are brief.
If you are looking at this side for brevity, might I strongly suggest that you turn your head to the other side.
I have no control over the Minister's replies——
That is the problem.
——but the Chair has control over Deputies' questions. When the Chair gives an admonition I expect both sides to respond.
In relation to the Bandon case, does the Minister not know that in continental countries, and in Holland in particular, there is a requirement that a person attends an educational course before he gets welfare?
Nonsense.
In that case, is it not ludicrous if the Minister does not exercise his powers to introduce the regulations? In relation to my other question on the Order Paper, which has not been touched, would the Minister accept that in the Kinsale cases there was a notice posted in the labour exchange about the availability of these courses for the long-term unemployed? People asked at the local employment exchanges if they would be able to do these courses and they were told they could.
It is clear the Chair is not getting the co-operation he expected.
It is ridiculous that they should be denied their benefits and allowances having followed through——
I have to call the next question.
May I ask a brief supplementary?
One Minister is enough.
A brief supplementary on the question.
May I have a reply without interference from Deputy Roche.
I was not interfering; I was asking a very brief supplementary.
May I have a reply from the Minister?
That is the usual procedure.
I refer the Deputy to my reply. I do not want to repeat it but he obviously did not hear what I said.
I did.
Neither sought advance approval from the Department in relation to their continuing entitlement to unemployment assistance and both were suspended. That is normal procedure and happened while the Deputy was in Government, and he never achieved anything. I am the person who is bringing in flexibility——
They were told there would be no problem.
The Deputy has a bee in his bonnet and wants to run away with something. Do not forget I am bringing in this flexibility——
What about these people who are being ground down by the system?
——and will continue to bring in flexibility for people on unemployment.
I am not satisfied with these replies and I want to give notice that I will raise this issue——
May I finish my reply? The Deputy mentioned the availability of courses and training. As he is aware, I specifically introduced the Jobsearch course to provide a whole range of training and other facilities for those on long-term unemployment. The Deputy mentioned the position in Holland. I ensured that a substantial number of training facilities would be made available to the long-term unemployed, and they are available. What I am doing is not only reasonable but it is progressive. The Deputy will have to bear in mind that all these measures have financial implications which have to be considered.
I am not satisfied with this reply. Therefore, I want to give notice of my intention to raise this issue on the Adjournment this evening.
I will communicate with the Deputy.
Will the Minister explain the degree of co-ordination between his Department and the Department of Education with regard to unemployed people taking on courses, particularly where a person does not qualify for ESF courses, is on low income and has to meet the cost of the course plus books which can run to something like £1,000? In what way can the Departments co-ordiante to assist such a person?
The co-ordination takes place through the local manager and the VEC in the first instance, and that has been working very well. I compliment VECs for their efforts and co-operation in that respect. In relation to additional expenses, there is some provision for travel but not for everything. This is another question which is not totally met at this stage. Nevertheless, it is a very substantial improvement.
Are we moving forward?
We are intent on providing allowances, such as travel and lunch allowances.
In the context of the question raised by Deputy O'Keeffe, would the Minister accept that what is being requested would, in the long-term, result in a saving to the Department as unemployment rates among third level graduates is only 4 per cent compared with 17 per cent or 18 per cent of the entire workforce?
The Deputy is aware that I work under legislation passed by this House and this legislation requires people to be available for work and actively seeking work in order to qualify for social welfare payments. I have a general power to deem certain people to be available for work when they are on some of these courses but the regulations I am bringing in will make it possible to deem courses other than those which have been set up to date as suitable for this purpose. I am afraid Deputies will have to wait for the detailed regulations.
I cannot let this opportunity pass without asking the Minister to admit that he has sat on this scheme for three years with masterly inactivity. Would he ensure that when he makes the regulations they will allow all courses that could qualify without any additional expense to Government funds other than those under the control of his Department and attempt to include all ESF courses where people are willing to meet expenses themselves, as well as developing the fully funded schemes in conjunction with the Department of Education?
As far as possible that would be my objective in the regulations. That is why I took the power, apart from what has already been done because I could see what had been done would not meet the situation and the Minister was restricted and could go no further. It is a sizeable step at this stage and a very important one. Consequently, the regulations have to be agreed and hopefully they will be available shortly.
5.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will consider extending the free fuel scheme to recipients of disability benefit given the fact that a large number of such people are on long-term disability benefit and such an extension would put them on a par with long-term unemployment assistance recipients; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
70.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will consider including people who are in receipt of disability benfit in the free fuel scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 and 70 together. The national fuel scheme is intended to assist persons dependent on long-term social welfare or health board payments who are unable to provide for their heating needs.
Disability benefit is essentially a short-term payment in respect of temporary incapacity for work. Where incapacity has lasted for 12 months and is likely to last for a further 12 months, it is open to the person concerned to apply for invalidity pension.
Invalidity pension is a qualifying payment for the purposes of the national fuel scheme and fuel allowances are payable to invalidity pensioners who satisfy the other conditions of the scheme. There is also provision under the supplementary welfare allowances scheme whereby assistance can be given where a person has exceptional heating needs by reason of ill-health or infirmity. In this way, the heating needs of the long-term ill are catered for and I have no proposal for further extensions along the lines suggested.
May I ask the Minister if he is aware that it is extremely difficult to be awarded an invalidity pension, that they are becoming rarer as the years go by and, that increasing numbers of those people are losing such benefits? Would the Minister have before him figures for the average time people are on disability benefit? To my knowledge there are people who have been on disability benefit for 17 years and upwards. In view of that and the fact that people in receipt of disability benefit are currently in receipt of £5 less than the long term unemployed, and may have been on it for many years, does he not view this as a serious anomaly? Where a person has been in receipt of disability benefit for over a year would he consider extending this benefit and other benefits which are referred to in Question No. 9?
If we reach it.
The number in receipt of invalidity pensions would be increasing rather than reducing. It is open to people on long term disability benefit to apply for invalidity pension after a year. The invalidity pension is a taxable benefit. Consequently some people may not wish, especially if there is a second partner involved who has an income, to be in receipt of a taxable benefit and therefore may not apply. That is known to be the position in a proportion of cases. It is not widely appreciated that if a person is on long term disability benefit and is ill enough to require additional heating that is open to them under the scheme and many people are being paid through that mechanism at present. The total number on disability benefit for over 15 months is 34,000.
Would the Minister agree that five years on disability benefit is equal to the classification long term social welfare recipient and equally should be entitled to the free fuel? Surely it is our collective responsibility to assist people who are on low incomes and disability benefit or invalidity pensions to enhance their standard of living from what is a very meagre level. It should not be our policy to force people to take up invalidity pensions which might bring that family unit into the tax net because of a meagre pension by the spouse of a claimant.
The disability benefit is a short term payment although there may be people who receive it for a long time. In most other countries it is not paid for any longer than 15 months. At that stage one either goes on invalidity benefit or stop receiving the benefit. The relationship between those different payments is a whole debate in itself. Essentially, it is a short term payment and as such it is equivalent to many other short term payments. To extend these benefits to short term payments would be extremely expensive overall. As the system operates at present there is a mechanism for people on long term disability benefit who are in need of heating to receive the free fuel.
Deputy Byrne rose.
Please Deputy. Deputy Flaherty wants a final question.
In view of the fact that the Minister confirmed there are 34,000 people——
A brief question Deputy please.
——on disability benefit, would he accept that they need a great deal of help? Would he further accept that the scheme he refers to is only available to people who have medical problems and that that is the only way in which they can receive fuel assistance? As the scheme is being managed now——
The Deputy has made her point.
——it is anomalous to treat them differently.
Deputy Byrne rose.
May I ask the Deputy and all concerned if they think it is fair and satisfactory, especially to those Deputies who expected replies to their questions today, that we should make such ponderous progress as to deal with five questions in three quarters of an hour? This is simply not good enough.
It is not everyday I get the opportunity——
I appreciate that but the position is as I have outlined it. This is not the way I like to deal with Question Time. All questions are important to the Chair and he likes to get a reasonable number disposed of every day. A brief supplementary Deputy, please.
I appreciate the point. It is not every day I question a Minister.
I accept that. It is my desire to facilitate Deputies and perhaps their questions could be brief and relevant.
Anyone who is on long term disability benefit is free after one year to apply for invalidity pension. That is and has been the position. There are many people on long term disability benefit who are not ill enough to be on invalidity pension; I think the Deputy is aware of that. If a person is very ill they can come in under the other method. The criteria for invalidity pension raise a different question.
