Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 5 Oct 2000

Vol. 523 No. 3

Written Answers. - Summer Jobs Scheme.

Michael Ring

Question:

110 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the number of applicants for the student summer jobs scheme 2000 which were successful in appealing the applications after an initial refusal; and the number by reason of the original refusal. [20954/00]

Michael Ring

Question:

111 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the number of applications for the student summer jobs scheme which were received after the closing date; and the number of these which were subsequently approved based on extenuating circumstances, medical evidence or any other reason. [20955/00]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 110 and 111 together.

A total of 140 requests for a review were received from students whose applications were unsuccessful under this years student summer jobs scheme. Of these 79 were successful.

Of the successful reviews, 36 were initially refused on means grounds, but on review, were found to be within the means limits, 38 were refused on the basis that their course of education had been completed, but on review, it was found that this was not the case. A total of five were initially refused on the grounds that they would not have attained the qualifying age of 18 by 31 August. Some 213 applications were received after the closing date. A total of seven of these were subsequently allowed following review.

Michael Ring

Question:

112 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the number of students in County Mayo who were refused the student summer jobs scheme 2000; and the number of applicants from the county who were approved the scheme. [20956/00]

Michael Ring

Question:

113 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the number of students in County Mayo who were refused the students summer jobs scheme 2000, listing the numbers in categories by their relevant refusal reason, that is, means, course complete and others; and the number of applicants from the county who were approved for the scheme. [20957/00]

It is proposed to take Questions Nos. 112 and 113 together.

Some 738 students from County Mayo were approved for participation in the student summer jobs scheme this year. Some 157 applications from students in County Mayo were disallowed for the following reasons: 80 applicants had completed their course of study; 69 exceeded the means limit, and eight were disallowed for miscellaneous reasons.

Michael Ring

Question:

114 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if a person (details supplied) in County Mayo will be approved for the student summer job scheme. [20958/00]

The purpose of the student summer jobs scheme is to provide income support during the summer holiday period to third level students from less well-off families who are disqualified from receiving unemployment assistance.

Students who have completed a course of study are not eligible to participate in the scheme as such students are eligible to apply for unemployment assistance if they are unable to obtain summer work.

The person concerned has completed a certificate course and she was not, therefore, eligible to participate in this years scheme. It was open to her to apply for unemployment assistance if she was unemployed during the summer.

Michael Ring

Question:

115 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if a person (details supplied) in County Mayo will be approved for the student summer job scheme in view of the fact that a doctor's letter was submitted as proof of his inability to submit his application on time. [20959/00]

An application for participation in the student summer jobs scheme was received from the person concerned on 3 July 2000. This application was disallowed on the grounds that it was not made by the deadline of 30 June 2000. The scheme was advertised in the national newspapers as usual this year in April and the deadline for receipt of claims was prominently displayed. The person had participated in the 1999 scheme and was, therefore, aware of the need to apply on time.

Over 200 late claims were refused this year and it is necessary to take an even handed approach with all applicants. Although the person submitted a certificate of illness for three to four days, it was considered insufficient reason to waive the rules regarding late applications in this case.

Top
Share