In this year's Social Welfare Bill, published on 11 March, the Minister announced the very controversial and, in the opinion of the majority of people, unjust decision to disentitle leaving certificate students and third level students of the right to apply for means tested unemployment assistance. Given the job sitution, both here and abroad, this decision is appalling and inexplicable.
There are two elements involved in this: first, a school leaver who may not wish or who may be unable to go on to third level education will have to wait for up to three months after the completion of his leaving certificate to sign on for unemployment assistance and, second, the withdrawal of an entitlement which existed in years, that is, the entitlement of a third level student to apply for unemployment assistance during the summer holiday period if he or she could not find work during that period. The inabilility to find work during the holiday period is hardly an unusual phenomenon nowadays. Students and their parents rightly believe that this decision is an outrageous attack on the social guarantees which natural justice gives them. In addition, it is flagrant discrimination against these students.
In order to counter some of the criticisms about these restrictions on students, the Minister announced the summer jobs scheme. This scheme could have been good if it had been given half a chance to work but, alas, the Minister did not even give it a quarter of a chance. It was decided to fix the weekly income under the scheme at £40 per week. This was a disgraceful decision; it is the worst example I have seen of asking people to work for low wages. A recent survey shows that it costs at least £80 per week to keep a student. The Minister for Social Welfare has decided that they should somehow be able to exist on half that amount.
To qualify for the scheme a student has to be entitled to £15 per week only in unemployment assistance. This is a total insult to students. No student, even those from the lower income brackets could qualify for the scheme. Students from the average, middle and lower middle income brackets will not be able to qualify for this scheme because the conditions are so restricted — they are the worst conditions which apply to means tests for unemployment assistance. These conditions have been condemned over and over again in this House. For example, students living at home are deemed to have the benefit of board and lodgings. There is also the fictitious notion that a portion of the parents' income or, even worse, a portion of the income of other members of the household, somehow goes into the pocket of an applicant. This simply does not happen in 99.9 per cent of cases. We have condemned that attitude. The Minister, in responding to parliamentary questions tabled by me, acknowledged there is something wrong and that he would like to do something about it but it has been continued in this scheme.
The questions on the application form are intrusive. The students are asked to state the third level grant they are getting, their income under any deed of covenant or if they have savings in a bank, post office or credit union account. These questions are unnecessasry. There is also a range of intrusive questions in regard to their parents' income; how much each parent earns; whether either parent is in receipt of social welfare and the level of their rent or mortgage payments. There is also a range of personal questions about other members of the family. The students are asked to name and state the family members who are employed and unemployed, again implying that a portion of the income earned can be attributed to them.
This scheme in its present form is a disgrace. There are enough youth problems without us contributing to them. It is bad enough to debar young people from a social welfare payment for which they reluctantly apply as it is their only option, but this is an insult to them.
