Eamon Gilmore
Question:11 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if he will extend the back to education scheme to people over 18 years. [24979/00]
Other Questions - Social Welfare Benefits.
David Stanton
Question:35 Mr. Stanton asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if he will reduce the qualifying age for the various back to education programmes administered by his Department from 21 years to 19 years and to 20 years in the case of third level postgraduate courses; the cost of the various back to education programmes currently administered by his Department; the number involved in the respective courses; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25082/00]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 11 and 35 together.
The back to education allowance is a second chance educational opportunities scheme designed to facilitate unemployed people, lone parents and people with disabilities who are finding it difficult to obtain employment and to improve their qualifications with a view to returning to the active workforce.
There are two study options available under the scheme, namely, the second level option under which a person may attend a second level full-time course leading to a recognised certificate and the third level option under which a person can attend an approved full-time third level course at a university or third level institution. Such a course can be at undergraduate or postgraduate level.
To qualify for participation in the scheme a person must, inter alia, be at least 21 years of age for approved second and third level courses and at least 24 years of age for approved third level postgraduate courses. I believe that these age limits are reasonable having regard to the nature of the scheme, namely the fact that it is there to support people who have been out of the educational system and have been unable to obtain employment over a period. The scheme is not and never was intended to be a scheme of financial assistance generally for people taking up educational courses or to support any existing arrangements for the support of students in general.
In September 1999 I reduced the qualifying age under the scheme for recipients of disability allowance, blind person's pension, invalidity pension and unemployability supplement to 18 years. This reflects the special difficulties which recipients of these payments can face when attempting to find work or improve their educational qualifications.
The back to education allowance scheme has proved to be very successful to date and is an integral and important part of my Department's employment support services. It reflects my policy of making our social welfare system more work supportive by encouraging people to leave welfare support as soon as they are able to do so and return to the active labour market. I am arranging for a review of the scheme to be carried out and the question of an appropriate age limit for the scheme in present circumstances will be among the issue to be addressed as part of this process.
The total expenditure for the back to education allowance scheme in 1999 was £19.9 million and the estimated cost for 2000 is £23.1 million. During the 1999-2000 academic year, 5,388 availed of the back to education allowance. Of these, 623 availed of the second level option and 4,765 availed of the third level option, of whom 591 are pursuing third level postgraduate courses of study.
The Minister might be aware that recently Trinity College and UCD took part in a survey which showed that 2% of the student body came from the semi-skilled and unskilled segments of society which constitute 25% of the population in Dublin. This is an extraordinary statistic. Obviously, Joe Duffy I and were among the 2%, although at that time the percentage was even smaller. Does this not highlight educational disadvantage? It is not unknown for girls of 16 or 17 years of age to have a child, to miss six to nine months of second level education during their pregnancy and then to come to us at 18 or 19 years of age wanting to return to the second level system, which opens the gate to third level. Will the Minister look at this sympathetically, at second and third levels, to encourage people whose education has been interrupted for whatever reason?
This scheme was never intended to be a substitute or addition to the student support grant schemes under the Department of Education and Science. The age limit was set, subject to the amendments I have made, in order to give people a second chance, particularly those who are long-term unemployed who have been out of the education system for quite a long time. Figures from the Department of Education and Science show that 59% of the current student population are under 21 years of age. Therefore, reducing the age limit to under 21 years of age would have huge cost implications. There is also a danger that if it is reduced to 18, people might go directly from school onto unemployment benefit with a view to taking up this scheme after six months.
The issue of reducing the age limit has been raised from time to time and I will keep it under review. However, there are difficulties – it is not just a matter of reducing the age limit. There is a justifiable case for reducing the age limit for a number of special cases, particularly for those with disabilities, and we have done that.
Does the Minister not see particular circumstances of disadvantage where this would benefit people, such as those mentioned by Deputy Broughan, including single parents who have had to take time out from second level schools, and that a scheme targeted at specific socio-economic groups could be very beneficial? It would help them in the longer term by taking them off welfare dependency, giving them an education and getting them back to work. Would this not have decided merit? Will the Minister agree to examine a focused form of back to education allowance which could kick in at 18 or 19 years of age?
I accept fully what the Deputy has said and I will keep it under review, but I cannot guarantee I will do anything as the more the limit is reduced the more it will begin to replace the existing supports. I am also advised there is a significant danger that if the age limit was lowered, people would purposely go on the live register in order to get the allowance. It is designed to give people a second chance and to return to education. The figures show that 5,388 people are benefiting from the scheme, which is a substantial number. Most of these are benefiting in terms of third level.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.