Vol. 505 No. 4
18 Mr. Broughan asked the Minister for Finance the number of people participating on the job assist programme; the number of people who have returned to unemployment after a period on the programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10330/99]
The Revenue job assist scheme was introduced in April last year to complement the wide range of schemes already available to assist the long-term unemployed back into employment. The scheme is a focused two part initiative which gives the long-term unemployed an incentive to take up employment and gives potential employers an incentive to employ a long-term unemployed person as opposed to someone else in the labour market. This scheme has not been extended to cater for certain persons with disabilities since the start of this year.
According to statistics produced by the Revenue Commissioners for the 1998-99 year of assessment, covering the 12 month period from 6 April 1998 to 5 April 1999, a total of 1,112 cases had been issued a tax free allowance which included the job assist scheme in that period. Of the 1,112 cases, a total of 132 cases were no longer in employment at the end of that year of assessment. This represents a drop out rate of nearly 12 per cent. While, ideally, I would prefer if all the people who had benefited from this scheme had remained in full-time employment, the fact that 88 per cent of them were still employed at the end of the first year of operation of the scheme is most encouraging. Furthermore, in the first four weeks of the current tax year an additional 344 cases have now availed of the scheme and further details of these recent cases will shortly be available from Revenue.
The Revenue job assist scheme is working satisfactorily, both in dealing with the difficulties faced by the persons who are long-term unemployed from another angle, and in complementing the wide range of back to work incentives already available to this category of persons. The scheme has met a clear need since its introduction last year and I assure the Deputy its operation will continue to be closely monitored.
The Minister will recall that when he introduced the experimental pilot scheme he found support on this side of the House for it. Perhaps he can refresh my memory and tell my the number of places which were provided for. It seems to me that it was in excess of the 11,000 or so which have been taken up. How much money is being provided in the current year for up-take of the scheme?
There was no specific sum of money provided for it because it is a Revenue loss to the tax system. I might have referred to the figure in the budget.
I think the Minister said 3,000 places.
I am nearly certain that I did not state a number of places because, as I said at the time, it was an experiment but I can look up the record. I do not want to be too categorical about this. It seems to have worked well. It was a targeted scheme to try to tackle the problem long-term unemployment by giving a clear incentive to the employer to go after a long-term unemployed person as opposed to employing a person seeking a job in the normal way. In that sense there was a clear intent to distort the labour market. On the other hand it gives an incentive to the long-term unemployed person to take up employment by giving him or her an additional tax free allowance, which is also a clear intent to distort the labour market at that end because two people working side by side in similar circumstances would have two different tax rates. It has worked well.
The Minister has exceeded his one minute.
Will the Minister outline the breakdown between male and female participants?
I do not have that information. I will see if I can get it for the Deputy.
Is the Minister aware that during the 12 months or so in which the scheme has been in operation more than 17,000 people who have been unemployed for more than one year have left the live register and taken up employment? Why have they not qualified for it? He is giving it to less than one in 16 of those eligible people. What effort is he making to promote the scheme among the long-term unemployed? By accident I have come across numerous people who have left the live register who did not know they were entitled to it. The Minister's Department is failing in that area.
When I introduced the scheme to my Department I said there was not much point in introducing this initiative, which was my idea, if nobody knew about it. The Deputy will recall that last year the Revenue Commissioners conducted an advertising campaign announcing the scheme on radio for serveral weeks – I heard the radio advertisements.
I agree with Deputy Bruton that many of the long-term unemployed who have gone back to work have not known about the scheme, but one would have thought that the employer would have known about it because there is a clear benefit for the employer also. He is entitled to claim double the cost of taking on those long-term unemployed people, but maybe the labour market is so buoyant and profits are so good that the employers are not worried about it either.
There is an anomaly, as the Deputy pointed out. The figures for long-term unemployment have fallen to a little over 3 per cent. Therefore, a great many long-term unemployed people have taken up employment and have not availed of this. I am delighted they are back working and cost the Exchequer less, but this is available to them if they so wish.
The Minister is keeping it a thinly guarded secret. He is making no effort. He is not out among the social welfare officers.
The Deputy must ask a question. This is Question Time.
Should the Minister provide that when a person who is unemployed for more than a year leaves the register he or she will receive notification by post or by hand from the social welfare office to tell him or her to apply for this?
That is what I said. At the start of last year we made it known. We conducted an advertising campaign through the Revenue Commissioners. I cannot tell the Deputy whether each unemployment exchange had one of these things also.
I can tell him that they do not.
The Deputy must remember that there was a little difficulty at the time because some people in that area of activity might have preferred to keep the back to work scheme. It is something I will consider again.
