Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 May 2003

Vol. 567 No. 2

Adjournment Debate. - Education Schemes.

Mr. Ring

It does not give me great pleasure to raise this issue on the Adjournment this evening. I am disappointed with the way the Minister and the Government have handled this scheme, which is one of the better schemes introduced by the Government in recent years. There are 6,474 people involved in the back to education allowance scheme. These people are on social welfare, but they retain their social welfare benefits during the summer months when they go back into the education system. However, the Minister has changed that this year. She is now saying that people must sign on at labour exchanges during the summer months. That is a serious change to the scheme.

It is wrong for the Government to enter into an agreement with students and then to change the ground rules. That is what has happened in this case. Approximately 6,000 people thought last year that the scheme would continue until they finished their education. However, that will not happen. I am surprised at the Government and the Minister because these people want to educate themselves so that they will not have to depend on social welfare in the future. They want to contribute to the Exchequer.

The Government is being short-sighted. However, that is nothing new. It has already abolished the summer jobs scheme and many community employment schemes. The latest one to be affected is the back to work scheme. In the past if a person was employed for more than 15 months, he or she qualified for the back to work scheme. However, a person must now be unemployed for more than five years to qualify for it. This is an attack on the poor, the weak and the marginalised. I am surprised at the Minister and the Government for their short-sighted view of education, particularly of the back to education allowance scheme.

I have received representations from people throughout the country, including Dublin, who are upset and annoyed at this change by the Government and the Minister. These people fell out of the education system for one reason or another. They are on social welfare, but they are now back in the education system. Some of them are married and some have children. Many of them were encouraged to get back into the education system because they could retain their social welfare benefits. This scheme has worked. If the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Coughlan, was here, I would tell her she should not have allowed the Department and the Government to make such a decision because it affects the most marginalised in society. If the Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, gets an oppor tunity, he should ask the Government to look at this scheme again. It is wrong to change a scheme which has worked.

Thousands of people used the scheme because it was the chance for which they were waiting to get back into the education system, while retaining their social welfare benefits. Many of these people will now go to the social welfare offices where they will be told by social welfare officers that they can work for the summer months. Some of them will get into difficulty and they will then have to go to the community welfare officers in the health boards. Many of these people will become disillusioned with the system and they will not go back to education. The Government is being short-sighted. If these people go to third level colleges and get a degree or diploma, they will be in the workplace in the next few years and they will be able to contribute to the State.

The Government has made a mistake. I call on the Government to change its mind. What it has done is wrong. If the Government entered into a three year agreement tomorrow morning with a contractor, it would not try to change it in the middle of the three year term. That is what is happening in this case. People who went back into the education system last September believed the scheme would be available for the three years they would be in full-time education. However, the ground rules have been changed. The Minister should allow those already in the scheme to continue to get their benefits and she could tell the new people the rules have changed. The Government is wrong and it will regret it in the future.

Mr. Treacy

I am happy to reply to this debate on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Coughlan. She asked me to inform the House and the Deputy that she regrets she cannot be here tonight as she is out of the country on Government business.

The Department of Social and Family Affairs administers a range of back to education programmes under the umbrella of its employment support services to encourage and facilitate unemployed people, lone parents and people with disabilities to return to work through the acquisition and improvement of skills and academic qualifications which will enable them to compete more successfully for employment. The fundamental aim of the back to education allowance scheme is to assist people who are unable to access the labour market because of a lack of qualifications or education and who are caught up in a cycle of unemployment and disadvantage. For example, the scheme has given many people who left school early a second chance for education which will improve their prospects of getting employment. It is important for the House to recognise that since we returned to office in 1997 there has been an 18 fold increase in adult edu cation and further life long learning opportunities for people who did not have the opportunity during their educational careers. That has had a major impact on education.

Mr. Ring

The Government is taking it back from them when they need it.

Mr. Treacy

Following a review by the Department of Social and Family Affairs of the basic purpose underlying the back to education provisions and, in light of the expenditure constraints facing us this year, it was decided that the scheme should be again focused towards people who most need additional training or qualifications in order to gain a foothold in the labour market. In the past, the generous back to education allowance scheme provided for payment to be made to persons during the summer period between academic years. However, people who were previously unemployed often find work opportunities, similar to the student summer jobs scheme, either at home or abroad during the summer months. In such circumstances and in order to ensure that resources focus on the most vulnerable in our community, it is inappropriate to continue payment for this period. Participants in the scheme who fail to find employment during the summer may be entitled to an unemployment payment, subject to satisfying the usual qualifying conditions.

Participants on the back to education allowance scheme who must, as an integral part of their course, undergo a period of work placement, work experience or research during the summer months will continue to receive the allowance for this period. That area of activity and the focused opportunity will be sustained through the monetary support available. This decision affects only back to education allowance scheme participants who were in receipt of an unemployment payment prior to participation in the scheme. Participants who accessed the scheme by way of a disability or lone parent payment are not affected and will continue to receive the allowance during the summer. Only a small group will be affected. It should also be noted that back to education allowance scheme participants, who are progressing to the next year of their course or progressing in qualifications, will have their back to education allowance reinstated from the beginning of the new academic year, irrespective of whether they were employed or in receipt of an unemployment payment during the summer. There will not be a negative impact when they return to their academic studies.

As regards changes in the scheme as it relates to postgraduates, my colleague, the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, is satisfied that those in possession of a third level qualification have already achieved a good level of academic attainment, which should impact positively on their employment prospects. In a time of financial constraint, she wants to ensure that supports are directed to those with more pressing needs. The Minister recently asked her officials to liaise with the relevant bodies to identify specific postgraduate courses, such as the higher diploma in education, which add significantly to a person's employability and to which the back to education allowance should continue to apply. As a consequence, the Department of Social and Family Affairs will continue to support those wishing to take up a higher diploma in all disciplines or a graduate diploma in primary school teaching, which shows flexibility.

In framing proposals to change elements of the back to education allowance scheme, the Minister for Social and Family Affairs was conscious of the need to ensure that payments were focused on those most at risk from long-term unemployment. The Minister believes in a situation where priorities had to be set and choices made, that people in the greatest need of assistance under the scheme have been protected. I am sure Deputy Ring concurs with that. The Minister has done her best to ensure that everyone gets support at a critical time to maximise their opportunities—

Mr. Ring

She has let these people down.

Mr. Treacy

—and to become fully qualified and skilled for the labour market in a modern growing economy.

Mr. Ring

She has let down the weak and poor in our society. She caved in to the Minister for Finance and the Progressive Democrats.

The Dáil adjourned at 9.40 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 22 May 2003.