Vol. 677 No. 2
1 Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if she is satisfied that local office staffing levels are sufficient to process and pay welfare entitlements, particularly jobseekers’ supports, within an acceptable and reasonable timeframe; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [9371/09]
The Deputy will be aware of the significant increase in the number of people applying for jobseeker's payment during the past year. Between February 2008 and February 2009, the live register increased by approximately 165,000 people or more than 87%. Staff in social welfare local offices are working extremely hard and productivity increased by 74% between the last quarter of 2007 and the final quarter of 2008. Approximately 250 additional posts have been allocated by the Department in recent months. A total of 190 additional staff are also being put in place in local offices to minimise delays in claim processing.
These include 31 additional staff assigned to local offices; 115 additional staff identified as necessary as part of a staffing review carried out in October 2008; 32 temporary staff assigned from 2 March to the 17 local offices with the highest volumes of claims on hand; and 12 extra staff as identified in a separate staffing exercise for Cork local office. As many local offices are close to capacity in accommodating more staff, a further 40 staff are being assigned to central decisions units. A total of 16 social welfare inspectors are also being assigned to various locations throughout the country to undertake means testing and other work associated with processing claims for the jobseeker's allowance. In addition to these 250 staff, the number of facilitators has also been increased from 40 to 60.
Measures have also been taken to improve the processes used in processing claims. These include the introduction of a streamlined process for people who had a claim in the previous two years; the testing of an improved procedure for claimants moving from jobseeker's benefit to jobseeker's allowance, which we plan to extend to all offices later this month; on-line availability of application forms for the jobseeker schemes; and the use of an appointment system for taking claims in some offices which we intend to roll out to other areas over the coming months. While every effort is made to ensure applications are processed as quickly as possible, those who are under financial pressure while awaiting a decision on their claim for a jobseeker's payment can apply for supplementary welfare allowance, which is subject to a means test and other qualifying conditions but which means nobody need go without.
I fully appreciate that becoming unemployed and having to claim a jobseeker's payment is stressful enough. By introducing these initiatives I am trying to ensure the process is as easy as it can be. Processing times in some areas are still too long and I assure Deputies that the necessary steps are being taken to reduce them.
I welcome any steps taken to reduce the processing time but I am concerned about the pace of delivery of the changes. The Minister stated claimants could avail of the supplementary welfare allowance but the difficulty is that part of the service has gone beyond breaking point, according to some staff. The knock-on effect of not having sufficient staff in local welfare offices means claimants are forwarded to community welfare officers, CWOs, who are inundated. The number of claims they process has increased by 85% over the past two years.
What is the average delay at this time? Has it improved since we last discussed the issue in February? Perhaps the times have improved in some offices but I am sure they have deteriorated in others. The Minister issued a statement outlining the additional need for staff in her Department and said the matter had been raised with the Department of Finance. What was the Department's response? Will additional staff be provided?
The Minister stated between 40 and 60 facilitators had been approved. Last July, she announced 50 additional facilitators would be taken on. Were all of them recruited?
Before community welfare officers make a payment to a claimant, they carry out an assessment to ensure the person is entitled to the allowance he or she is seeking from the Department of Social and Family Affairs. They can process that within a week before making the payment. How can a CWO, given his or her workload, do that while the Department's officials take up to 16 weeks to process claims in some instances?
CWOs come under the HSE, even though they use money from my Department's budget. I appreciate that they are under a great deal of pressure but the HSE has put together a business case for additional officers that must be considered in the context of overall numbers in the public service. To date, we have not had a difficulty with the Department of Finance in seeking additional staff primarily because the officials are being transferred from other Departments. However, different arrangements and agreements were put in place over the years regarding panels, regions and so on, which must be adhered to, and that can affect the movement of officials. The fact that we have sanction to move almost 250 officials demonstrates the co-operation between the Department and the Minister for Finance.
The average processing time for the jobseeker's benefit is shorter than that for the jobseeker's allowance because a means test is required. It is approximately two weeks for benefit claims and five weeks for the allowance claim. The volume of applications in January and February will push the processing time back. Unfortunately, 1,000 people a day signed on the live register in January, which could result in many more jobseeker's allowance claims, while 26,500 signed on in February, which is significant. Every effort is being made.
Queues, unfortunately, form outside social welfare offices and staff have asked claimants to return in the afternoon when fewer people tend to sign on. I can understand that somebody who is used to getting up and heading to work wants to get into the social welfare office and sort out his or her affairs as quickly as possible. Claimants tend to turn up first thing in the morning. The staff in the offices have been trying to manage as best they can to facilitate people at different times.
I never mentioned the queues outside offices but they are appalling. I will ask the questions again that I asked earlier. What happened to the 50 facilitators, the appointment of whom the Minister announced last July? Were they all recruited and deployed? When did the number of facilitators change from 40 to 60? When community welfare officers assess an application for a supplementary welfare payment, they must obtain information to ensure the claimant has an entitlement. How can they process such claims within a week while it takes up to 16 weeks for the Department to process claims?
I do not have the full details but the number of facilitators has increased since last July.
The Minister stated 50 would be provided in July and it appears only 20 more have been added.
I did not say they would be in place by February. More facilitators will be provided under the national development plan, NDP. I am open to correction but the number has increased by 20 since July. Under the NDP, 50 additional facilitators were to be deployed. They are facilitating the back to education and back to work schemes.
The difference in the assessments conducted by the community welfare officer and local welfare office staff is that the CWOs assess for an immediate need whereas the local office staff assess for a long-term need. The assessment must, therefore, be thorough.
It is the same information.
2 Deputy Róisín Shortall asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the steps she is taking to improve pension security for members of defined benefit schemes in the private sector. [9408/09]
The security of occupational pension schemes is of paramount importance to the Government. Trust law, under which most pension schemes are established, ensures that the assets of the scheme are legally separate from the assets of the employer and are not available to other creditors should an employer become insolvent. Trustees of occupational pension schemes have responsibility for ensuring that the entitlements of scheme members are adequately protected and that they receive the pensions due to them. In addition to the safeguards provided by trust law, the Pensions Act 1990 provides for the regulation of pensions schemes in Ireland. Under this Act, defined benefit pension schemes must meet a minimum funding standard, which requires that schemes maintain sufficient assets to enable them discharge accrued liabilities in the event of the scheme winding up. Where schemes do not satisfy the funding standard, the sponsors-trustees must submit a funding proposal to the Pensions Board to restore the scheme to full funding.
It is estimated that in excess of 90% of defined benefits pension schemes are in deficit. However, the full extent of the level of under-funding will not be fully apparent until all schemes carry out their next actuarial assessment and report the results to the Pensions Board. This Government has sought to ensure, in so far as it can, that sponsoring employers and pension scheme trustees have sufficient time and space to fully assess the implications of the current difficulties for their schemes and the remedial action they can take. Indeed, we recently implemented a number of short-term measures to ease the pressures including additional time for schemes to formulate funding proposals; greater flexibility — more than ten years — for recovery plans in appropriate circumstances; allowing a replacement recovery plan to extend beyond the end date of the original plan; and enabling the board to take into account voluntary employer guarantees in approving recovery plans.
Furthermore, to ensure these concessions are not seen as a weakening of supervision arrangements, the Pensions Board will not accept recovery plans which do not demonstrate an appropriate investment approach. The Government is considering a number of options regarding the ongoing security of occupational pensions. Decisions made in this context will be considered as part of the development of the national pensions framework, which is due to be finalised shortly.
Is it not the case that the pensions area is yet another in which the Government failed to regulate or address the underfunding issue during the boom? We are now paying the price in so far as no policy is in place and no action has been taken in recent years.
Some 500,000 people depend on defined benefit pension schemes, the majority of which are underfunded. This is the Minister's responsibility. The Green Paper on Pensions was published 18 months ago, but we still do not know her thoughts on it. What is the extent of the overall shortfall in funding in defined benefit schemes, what actions does she propose to take and how will she avoid exposing the State to substantial claims over defined benefit schemes in insolvent companies, for example, Waterford Crystal? Its workers made a proposal to deal with the pensions shortfall, but she rejected it and has consequently exposed the State to serious claims arising from the Robbins judgment in the European Court of Justice.
As I have indicated, we anticipate that approximately 90% of the funds are in deficit, but whether the level is 25% of 50% will not be known until actuarial certificates are submitted.
Does the Minister not have a consultant's report?
The figure could be as high as €30 billion, a significant amount of money. I can understand people's concerns about their pension schemes. Pensions are well regulated under trust law and the Pensions Acts, but there is scope for a tightening of regulation as has occurred in other areas, such as in the financial arena where regulation was not as tight as necessary.
Defined benefit schemes are private investment funds. While it is difficult for people to watch the funds into which they have been contributing running into difficulty, the Government's first commitment is to the State pension. It must be remembered that the schemes in question are private schemes. However, the Government is considering a number of proposals and issues.
The European Commission is conducting an assessment of the impact of the ruling in the Robbins case. At the time, it was satisfied that Ireland was in compliance with all of the then regulations.
It was not. That is not true.
The Commission has not started its assessment of the requirements on individual countries.
The Minister is wrong, as the Commission is not satisfied that Ireland has made adequate provision. As a result of the significant Robbins judgment, the UK authorities took immediate action, but we have done nothing. Recently, the Commission stated that, despite a number of EU reports indicating that Ireland was still in breach of obligations, no action has been taken. The Minister is exposing the taxpayer to major claims against the State.
What is the Minister's position in respect of the proposal put to her by Waterford Crystal workers? Given her rejection of it, is she not exposing the taxpayer and what will she do in this regard?
When the Commission reviewed the transposition of Article 8 of the directive, it——
I am discussing the judgment, not the directive.
Allow the Minister to continue.
——gave an assurance that Ireland had adequately transposed the provision. The implications of the Robbins judgment are being assessed fully by the Commission to discern whether it places additional obligations on member states.
The Minister is misleading the House.
The Deputy knows that she cannot make that charge.
As a result of the ruling, the European Court of Justice found that Ireland had not made adequate provision for pensions. The exposure exists there. It is not just a private matter that the Minister can disown. She has taken no action on the court's finding.
We must move on.
The Robbins case was taken in the UK, not——
The Minister supported it.
——by Irish workers. When the EU assessed the transposition of the directive, it stated that Ireland had, at the time, done so adequately. The Robbins ruling is being assessed to discern what additional obligations exist. The case was taken in the UK, not in Ireland.
It was a European court.
We are in the same situation as the UK. It took immediate action after the judgment, but we have done nothing.
3 Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the way she plans to reform the rent supplement scheme to ensure that those eligible for the payment can access good quality accommodation; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [9372/09]
Rent supplement is payable to people who are unable to meet the cost of renting private accommodation and is intended as a short-term income support. Currently, almost 80,000 people are in receipt of rent supplement, an increase of 34% since the end of December 2007.
Rent limits are set at levels that enable eligible households to secure and retain basic suitable rented accommodation. Maximum rent limits are prescribed in regulations and are time limited so that they can be adjusted in light of rent levels generally. The most recent regulations cover the period up to 31 December 2009.
Rent limits are currently being reviewed. In testing the level at which basic accommodation can be secured, the Department is informed by analysis of data on rent supplement tenancies, data provided by the Private Residential Tenancies Board on tenancies registered by it and submissions by interested statutory and non-statutory bodies, including the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The review will also be informed by the latest private rented index report to be published by the CSO in mid-March 2009.
The Government has recently approved a package of measures to update minimum standards regulations for rental accommodation. Enforcement of these standards is the responsibility of local authorities. Accommodation occupied by rent supplement tenants should at least meet minimum housing standards. Where a housing authority notifies the HSE of non-compliance with housing standards, rent supplement is not payable. Where the HSE becomes aware of accommodation that appears to be substandard it notifies the local authority of its concerns. The HSE may also advise prospective tenants that rent supplement will not be paid in respect of tenancies at the premises.
The rental accommodation scheme, RAS, which is operated by local authorities, provides access to a range of long-term, good quality housing supports for those availing of it. Details of people in receipt of rent supplement for 18 months or longer are notified to the local authorities through the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government for inclusion in the schemes. This data is also used by local authorities in enforcing housing standards. Currently, 31,000 people are getting rent supplement for 18 months or longer and almost 18,000 tenants have been transferred from the rent supplement scheme to the RAS since 2005. The Department is committed to supporting local authorities in meeting their responsibilities in the enforcement of housing standards and the implementation of the RAS.
Members should desist from calling rent supplement a short-term payment because at this stage it is anything but. Is the Minister concerned that her Department has not come close to meeting its targets regarding the transfer of people from rent supplement to the RAS? The transfer rate is nowhere near what was expected. How does she intend to address this and when does she expect the aforementioned 31,000 recipients of rent supplement to move on to the RAS? When does she expect to reach that target figure?
The Minister is probably aware of a survey conducted by Threshold that she should take into consideration during her review. Of 172 bedsit accommodation units examined by Threshold in the Dublin area, only three were available that complied with the new regulations and accepted rent supplement. A serious problem exists at the lower level of the market regarding the amount being paid to people and the quality of the accommodation. How does the Minister intend to address this issue? While I believe there is a need for a review of rent limits, I wish to ensure that those at the lower end of the market will be protected in that review.
I will call the Deputy again.
A total of 18,000 people have been moved from being in receipt of rent supplement onto the RAS. Of those, 8,600 were placed in social housing and the rest, through the local authorities, were perhaps placed in private housing of good quality or whatever. The great benefit of being on this scheme is that once one qualifies for it, one can work, thereby removing any disincentive to work that may have obtained. The more people that transfer the better, and the Department has been working closely with——
Why are they not doing so?
My Department been working closely with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, which has responsibility for housing. There is close co-operation between the Departments to ascertain whether more people can be taken off rent supplement. In recent months, all local authorities have begun to give priority to this issue and I look forward to seeing even greater numbers arising therefrom.
The Deputy referred to the rent amounts. The CSO survey guides the Department most and is due out in the middle of this month. It will feed into the rent limit review being undertaken by my Department. It is significant that 21,000 units are available for rent in Dublin at present, whereas only 10,000 units were available one year ago. Consequently, this should affect rent prices, as well as the availability of good quality accommodation.
The Minister should answer the questions I asked, rather than the questions she would like me to ask. I asked her the reason her Department has not reached its targets regarding the transfer from rent supplement to RAS. I did not ask for a dissertation——
The answer is because of the Department——
Allow the Deputy to put her question.
The Department has not managed to effect the transfer and has not reached its targets. I ask again, why not? Second, in the course of the rent limit review, has the Minister considered setting up a deposit protection scheme? Her Department is unable to get back between €6 million and €7 million a year that is paid to landlords when deposits are forfeited. Were a scheme put in place whereby those deposits were protected, it would be a saving to the Department. Has the Minister examined this issue and does she intend to do anything about it?
Perhaps if the Deputy were to listen to the replies that are given, she would find they answer the questions.
I did listen.
Allow the Minister to reply.
I will revert to the first question asked by the Deputy, which I already have answered. However, I am happy to answer it again. The provision of social housing and responsibility for the RAS rests with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, with which we are working very closely to ensure that those who are on rent supplement can transfer.
It is not happening.
As for the quality of accommodation, again this is the responsibility of that Department and new regulations came in force on 1 February. They apply to new premises immediately and allow a four-year phasing-in time for other premises, which should help to improve the quality. As I mentioned, the availability of additional places, some of which are new, should ensure that people are able to get better quality. At present, the Department does not operate a deposit return scheme. However, it is something we can examine to ascertain whether it would be a viable option.
4 Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the action she will take to assist the money advice and budgeting service in dealing with the increased numbers of people seeking support and advice on the way to deal with debt problems; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [9373/09]
The money advice and budgeting service, MABS, is the main Government-funded service that provides assistance to people who are over-indebted and need help and advice in coping with debt problems. There are 53 independent MABS companies with voluntary boards of management operating the local MABS services from 65 locations throughout the country. In addition, the MABS national telephone helpline is available from 9 a.m. to 8 p.m., Monday to Friday, at lo-call number 1890 283 438, and budgeting and money management information can be accessed 24 hours a day at www.mabs.ie.In 2008, more than 16,600 new clients approached the MABS for assistance with debt difficulties and the telephone helpline dealt with almost 11,000 callers. This year, 3,400 new clients have approached the service. The telephone helpline has received 4,200 calls up to the end of February. In 2009, almost €18 million has been provided to assist the MABS in dealing with its workload. Six additional full and part-time staff have been allocated to the local services. The capacity of the telephone helpline has been strengthened and MABSndl, the national support company, has introduced a number of community education and other initiatives to assist the local services in managing their increased caseloads.
There now are 252 money advice staff employed throughout the country in the MABS. Money advisers help clients to assess their financial situation, make a budget plan and deal with creditors. All MABS companies operate an appointment system for meeting clients. Clients with urgent difficulties are prioritised for attention and are dealt with promptly. Less urgent cases are referred to the telephone helpline and to the MABS website. More than 90% of callers to the helpline find that their money management and budgeting issues can be resolved with the assistance of the helpline adviser. Approximately 10% of callers are referred to the local MABS for appointment.
The MABS advises that people coping with debt difficulties should take early action. An approach to the MABS, via any of the channels, can be the first positive step in addressing debt difficulties. The MABS provides a high-quality, personal service to members of the public that helps many in coping with and overcoming the burden of indebtedness that can have such an impact on their lives and that of their families.
I thank the Minister. The MABS does very good work and is to be commended, particularly given the difficult environment in which it now operates. That said, there is a need for a new or different level of expertise within the MABS organisation. Will the Minister give consideration to the idea of allowing the MABS to employ people with expertise in dealing with financial institutions to discuss the issue of loans and possible repossessions? This is a matter that has been brought to my attention repeatedly recently. I encountered an example this morning of someone over whom the threat of repossession hangs but who will be obliged to wait for eight weeks before being able to make an appointment with the MABS because the latter is so busy at present. There is a real need to have a division of MABS that can negotiate with financial institutions because agreements can be reached that would help people. However, the organisational capacity is not necessarily there, certainly not nationwide, to be able to so do for people at present. While the Minister cannot necessarily agree to this today, has she given consideration to this possibility or has she been approached to examine this issue?
In a related topic, the Minister probably is aware that people who avail of the moratorium on their mortgage repayments will have their credit rating damaged as a result, despite the Government's announcement. Has the Minister considered examining this issue to ensure that people's credit rating will not be damaged as a result?
I am unsure what the Deputy is asking in her first question.
To explain, my proposal is to have people in the MABS who have the time and the expertise to negotiate with financial institutions on people's behalf. They would negotiate changes in people's mortgage repayments and effectively would prevent repossessions.
That is what the money advisers do at present. I am aware the Deputy had a meeting recently to deal with her interests and concerns in this regard but in any company I have visited, the money advisers contact all the different creditors. One problem they are encountering is that those who are approaching them have up to 23 different creditors. In the past, when they dealt with a person who was dependent on social welfare, the problem may simply have been with the utilities, whereas at present, the MABS is finding the problems pertain to the utilities, financial institutions' moneylenders and a range of others. Consequently, each individual person who comes in is taking a considerable amount of time and the MABS is quite extended. However, those money advisers, having met the individual concerned, start negotiating with the banks. Recently the banks have signed up in respect of repossessions of homes and a timescale that would be used in that regard. Moreover, the statutory code of conduct that was introduced last week has meant that when people run into difficulty with financing institutions, they must be referred to MABS for advice. That is the role of the money advisers.
I am not criticising the work MABS is doing. However, dealing with financial institutions, particularly in the sub-prime area, requires different skills to those involved in contacting the ESB or Bord Gáis. The latter and organisations like them take a fairly responsible approach to those who are in debt. I am of the view, having talked to many people about this, that there is a need for an increase in the capacity of MABS to negotiate with sub-prime institutions. Will the Minister examine this?
More than 3,000 new clients have presented to MABS in the first two months of the year. It is under great pressure but is responding well to the demands on its resources. I will certainly investigate the issue the Deputy has raised and am willing to discuss it in more detail with her. The sub-prime lenders are a serious concern. MABS money advisers are finding it extremely difficult to get sub-prime lenders to work with them. The main financial institutions are certainly willing to do so and are now signed up to the code of conduct in this regard. Sub-prime lenders persuaded clients to consolidate all their loans into their mortgage. For example, a person with an initial mortgage of €40,000 may have ended up with a loan of €150,000 or €180,000 following the consolidation of all types of other debts. As I said, MABS money advisers are finding it difficult to get sub-prime lenders to engage with clients in difficulty. That is one of the issues we are trying to address.
5 Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs whether she agrees that her recent reforms to the back to education allowance do not go far enough and that the requirement for claimants to be in receipt of a welfare support, such as jobseeker’s benefit, for a period of 12 months before they are considered eligible is preventing people from accessing the critical upskilling and retraining necessary in this economic environment; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [9374/09]
Since its introduction, the underlying objective of the back to education allowance scheme has been to equip people on social welfare payments with qualifications that will enable them to obtain employment in the labour market. It is a second chance educational opportunities scheme for people on welfare payments who wish to participate in full-time education and who would not otherwise be able to do so. The allowance replaces the applicant's existing social welfare income and, in addition, an annual €500 cost of education allowance is payable. Also, participants may continue to receive any secondary benefits to which they have been entitled.
In general, an applicant must be in receipt of a relevant social welfare payment for six months if pursuing a second level course or 12 months if pursuing a third level course. The scheme has been modified in recent times. In order to support activation of unemployed people, the qualifying period for the third level option is reduced to nine months for persons participating in the national employment action plan process. People who are awarded statutory redundancy may access the scheme immediately, provided an entitlement to a relevant social welfare payment is established prior to commencing an approved course of study.
The Government has devoted significant resources to the back to education allowance, with €519 million allocated over the lifetime of the National Development Plan 2007-2013. This year, the budget for the scheme is €87.8 million and the number of participants has increased again in the current academic year. The number participating in the scheme at the end of January 2009 was 11,534, an increase of 46% compared with the end of January 2008.
The back to education allowance is an important part of our overall strategy to provide opportunities for unemployed people to upskill in order to enhance their prospects of entering or returning to the labour force. The requirement to be in receipt of a social welfare payment for a minimum period has always been a feature of the scheme. A waiting period is considered essential to confer entitlement to income support for an indefinite period and is considered necessary in the context of targeting scarce resources at those who need them most. The scheme will continue to be monitored in the light of the changed economic circumstance in order to ensure that it continues to meet its objectives.
Just because a scheme operated in a particular way in the past does not mean it should continue to operate in the same way in these changed economic times. The Minister said that €519 million is allocated to the scheme during the lifetime of the national development plan. If people are denied access to the back to education allowance, they will continue to be in receipt of other social welfare payments. The Minister seems unable to grasp this point.
The Taoiseach made reference to the back to education allowance in his speech to the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis last weekend but provided no context to his comment. Are changes proposed to the scheme and, if so, what specific changes are being examined? As the Minister observed, the regulations are less strict for those in receipt of statutory redundancy. This does not seem equitable. Of the increasing numbers of people who find themselves unemployed when the shop, hotel or restaurant in which they worked closes, many do not receive statutory redundancy. Why should they be penalised further by being denied the back to education allowance which is available immediately to persons who receive a lump sum on redundancy?
The context of the Taoiseach's speech and the speeches I and others made at the Ard-Fheis was to ascertain how, through co-operation between my Department, the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, we can make best use of the various existing schemes in order to facilitate as many people as possible to avail of training and education. My Department is actively seeking to ensure the schemes we administer are put to best effect in meeting the needs of those who avail of them. This will mean availing of vacancies in the post-leaving certificate sector and any spare capacity in the institutes of technology, as well as correlating our activities with those of FÁS.
As I said, we are actively looking to see what changes are required in the existing schemes to best meet the needs of those who find themselves unemployed. At the same time — and I know the Deputy agrees me with on this because we have discussed it before in the House — we must ensure we do not find ourselves in a situation where people are organising their affairs in order to avail of the back to education allowance, particularly in respect of third level courses. Nevertheless, there is scope to facilitate as many as possible.
It is a legitimate concern that people should not be encouraged to organise their affairs in that manner. However, I do not want people sitting idle for as long as 23 months. For example, if one loses one's job in October, one will be ineligible for the back to education allowance when the new college year starts 11 months later. Therefore, one must wait another entire year, until the following September, to avail of the scheme. This is of no assistance to people.
The Minister said she is examining this entire area. When does she propose to provide a solution to these difficulties? She should begin making changes immediately. We are always saying that emerging technologies will be what helps to bring us out of this recession. This would be somewhere to start. Members meet unemployed people every day who want to use their situation as an opportunity to retrain rather than merely sit at home hoping to find some type of work somewhere.
Many of the courses that are of particular benefit in terms of upskilling and retraining are at post-leaving certificate level, which is considered to be second level. Therefore, the less strict time requirements are applicable in those cases. For participants in the national employment action plan, the time requirement in respect of third level courses is reduced from 12 to nine months.
How many people have been facilitated in this way?
More and more people have been referred to the national employment action plan. I understand the current figure is some 60,000. The institutes of technology in particular are trying to organise their courses in such a way that applicants will not have to wait until the beginning of the traditional academic year to commence a course.
It is up to the Minister to address the difficulties caused by the 12-month requirement. She is passing the buck.
The Minister should be allowed to respond without interruption.
The Deputy made a valid point about people sitting at home because they have missed the beginning of the academic year. She made the case that a person laid off in October would have to wait an entire year. These changes by the institutes of technology will address those types of timing difficulties.
The Minister has it in her power to amend the 12-month rule.
The institutes are actively looking to see whether certain courses could begin mid-year in order to facilitate more people.
The Minister could change the rule.
That is not the issue. It is a question of the availability of courses.
It is up to the Minister to amend the timeframe.
