Vol. 414 No. 10
3 Mr. Shatter asked the Minister for Labour his views on whether there is a significant number of participants in the social employment scheme who are worse off financially that if they were in receipt of the unemployment assistance; and whether he proposes to implement any of the changes to the scheme proposed in the November 1991 submission of the scheme workers' alliance to tackle this problem.
A comparison of the weekly payments of participants on the social employment scheme and persons in receipt of unemployment assistance is as follows:
|
Unemployment Assistance |
Social Employment Scheme (SES) |
|
Basic rate £55.00 |
£72.00 |
|
Adult dependant £33.00 |
£31.50 |
|
Child dependant up to |
Up to £12.00 per child |
|
£12.00 per child |
A person with an adult dependant and three children would, therefore, have £139.50 per week on the social employment scheme as against £124 per week on unemployment assistance. While persons on unemployment assistance may have additional benefits such as fuel allowance, butter vouchers etc., the extra payment on the basic social employment scheme allowance more than compensates for the loss of these extra benefits.
I must emphasise that there is no compulsion on unemployed persons to participate in the scheme. However, if a person refuses an opportunity to participate in the scheme the reason for so doing may be investigated by the Department of Social Welfare in the context of that person's continued entitlement to unemployment compensation.
The submission recently made by the Scheme Workers Alliance sought improvements in the level of payments made under the scheme as if it were a full-time employment scheme. The social employment scheme offers part-time opportunities to the long term unemployed and the available resources are used to provide opportunities for as many long term unemployed people as possible.
Would the Minister not accept that the long term unemployed should be encouraged to participate in the social employment scheme and, if so, would he not agree that there is a specific discouragement to participate which is evident from the figures given by him? Would the Minister confirm that he is aware that in the case of two persons each with an adult dependant and three children, to which the Minister referred, one in receipt of unemployment assistance and the other on the social employment scheme, the differentiation between the two sums of money available collapses because the person on unemployment assistance also gets a fuel allowance, rent allowance, clothing and other allowances while the medical card is available to both? Would the Minister not accept, according to the submission made by the Scheme Workers Alliance, that there is an express disincentive to participate in the scheme and because many people suffer a net reduction in the moneys available to their family that this needs to be corrected?
I agree that there is a disincentive to participate in the scheme which needs to be looked at. I should tell the Deputy that the reason I picked that illustration is that I thought it was the one which best supported the case I know that he and the alliance would make. The figures demonstrate that the amounts payable on the social employment scheme are higher than the amounts payable on unemployment assistance. Having said that, I will keep the matter under review to make sure that if people are encouraged to participate in the social employment scheme there will be no obvious or visible disadvantages.
I am anxious to have Deputy Shatter's other question, Question No. 4, dealt with.
Would the Minister not accept that it is entirely inadequate to give the rates of unemployment assistance and compare them with the rates payable on the social employment scheme without giving the value of each of the additional allowances and benefits which accrue to families in receipt of unemployment assistance? Is the Minister aware that the free fuel voucher would bring the payment received on unemployment assistance up to parity with the payment on the social employment scheme? Would he agree that this is wrong and that if one is on a social employment scheme the incentive should be that the benefits that one would otherwise receive on unemployment assistaance would be retained and that the additional payment should recompense them for work done?
That is not the case. The figures I have given to the Deputy show that there is a differential of £17 per week on the basic rate between the amounts payable on the social employment scheme and on unemployment assistance.
What about the family with three children? The difference is £11 even before one talks about the rent allowance and so on.
The figures demonstrate that even in that case there is a differential of £15. Having said that, I think the Deputy has overstated the figures he has given in relation to supplementary allowances. He should not undermine a good case by exaggerating the figures. I have indicated to him that I will review the matter——
The Minister will review it?
Yes, because I am anxious to ensure there is no disincentive.
I am anxious that Question No. 4 is dealt with; if it is to be dealt with, it must be dealt with now.
Will the Minister give a detailed response to the Scheme Workers Alliance?
I will probably give my response in the House.
I said that Question No. 4 must be dealt with now.
That is not to say I would ignore them.
Question No. 4, please.
