Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 24 Mar 1998

Vol. 488 No. 7

Written Answers. - Community Employment Schemes.

Bernard Allen

Question:

313 Mr. Allen asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if participants of community employment schemes who return to disability benefit or unemployment benefit will lose out on the Christmas bonus and other secondary benefits. [7219/98]

Liam Lawlor

Question:

316 Mr. Lawlor asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if he will restore long-term benefits to those who have completed their participation on community employment schemes in view of claims from unemployed groups that the loss of these benefits has a deleterious affect on the take up levels of those schemes. [7342/98]

Joe Higgins

Question:

322 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if he will restore long-term benefits to those who complete community employment schemes in view of the fact that the loss of long-term benefits for those who complete these schemes has left them poorer than prior to going on the schemes, thus undermining the value and take up of the schemes. [7400/98]

It is proposed to take Questions Nos. 313, 316 and 322 together.

The issues raised by the Deputies arise from the introduction of class A PRSI for community employment, CE, workers which was provided for in the Social Welfare Act, 1996, and which was designed to enhance the PRSI status of CE workers and to put them on a par with other class A workers.

Class A PRSI provides cover for the full range of benefits and pensions available under the social insurance system including, for example, unemployment benefit, disability benefit, maternity benefit, retirement pension, old age (contributory) pension, widow's (contributory) pension, treatment (dental and optical) benefits and occupational injuries benefit.

One of the consequences of the measure is that CE workers who return to the live register may qualify or requalify for unemployment benefit as a result of having paid class A PRSI contributions. In such cases, their earnings in the relevant tax year will determine whether or not they receive a graduated rate or the full rate of unemployment benefit. Persons entitled to a reduced or graduated rate of unemployment benefit are entitled to claim unemployment assistance if it is more beneficial to them. However, long-term unemployment assistance is not payable where the claimant is entitled to full rate unemployment benefit.

The social welfare secondary benefits, which comprise the Christmas bonus, the free fuel allowance and butter vouchers, are payable only with long-term social welfare payments.

Unemployment benefit claimants do not, therefore, have an entitlement to these benefits. It should be noted that secondary benefits can, however, be retained if the person transfers from a CE scheme to a back-to-work allowance scheme or Jobstart, etc.

It is important to note also that, as regards income-related secondary benefits such as rent allowance or mortgage supplements and the back to school clothing and footwear allowance available under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme, medical cards and differential rents, the position is that, in the normal course, former CE workers who are solely dependent on a social welfare payment should continue, where appropriate, to receive these benefits.

I recognise the difficulties faced by those CE workers who lose entitlement to secondary benefits on qualifying or requalifying for unemployment benefit. However, the effect of the introduction of class A PRSI for CE workers was to place these workers on a par with other insured workers, in terms of both social insurance benefits and liabilities. In those circumstances, the position is that any concessions made to the former CE workers would also have to be extended to other short-term social welfare recipients. By way of illustrating the costs involved, the extension of the Christmas bonus alone to unemployment benefit claimants in 1997 would have amounted to some £4 million. The Deputies will appreciate, therefore, that in view of the cost implications, consideration of any concession along these lines could be undertaken only in a budgetary context and in the light both of the available resources and of other competing priorities within the wider welfare system.
Responsibility for the operation of the community employment scheme lies with FÁS and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. I am given to understand, however, that there are no indications of any slackening in demand for places on the scheme.
Top
Share