Willie O'Dea
Question:81. Deputy Willie O'Dea asked the Minister for Social Protection her plans to improve services to those who depend on the respite care grant; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [24272/14]
Priority Questions
Respite Care Services
The Minister will be aware that various suggestions were made to alleviate the effects of the cut in the respite care grant. I am trying to ascertain whether any of those recommendations has been implemented or is intended to be implemented.
The Government published a national carer strategy in 2012 to signal its commitment to recognising and respecting carers as key care partners and to respond to their needs across a number of policy areas. The contribution that carers make is critical to our society. The Department, in meeting its commitments under this strategy, provides a range of income supports to assist with the financial burden of caring. These include carer's allowance, carer's benefit, domiciliary care allowance and respite care grant.
A total of €806 million is provided for these payments in 2014.
Carer's allowance is the main income support. Over the past decade the number of people in receipt of carer's allowance has increased from just over 23,000 in 2004 to close to 57,200 at the end of last May. Nearly 25,000 of these recipients are in receipt of a carer's payment at half rate as they are also in receipt of another social welfare payment. For example, a lone parent who is caring on a full-time basis for an elderly relative can receive €219.80 in one-parent family payment and €102 per week in half-rate carer's allowance. Recipients of carer's allowance also qualify for free travel and, if they are living with the person they are caring for, the household benefits package.
In addition, the respite care grant is an annual non-means-tested payment made to carers by the Department. Full-time carers who are not in receipt of a carer's payment from the Department are also entitled to the grant. In fact, I am pleased to inform the Deputy that the annual payment of the respite care grant commenced last Thursday to more than 70,000 carers at an estimated cost of €122 million for the full year in 2014. Carers can use the grant in whatever way they wish.
The Government is committed to ensuring that, in addition to the necessary income supports, carers receive a comprehensive range of services to assist in the caring role. The responsibility for providing respite care services and supports rests with the Department of Health and the Health Service Executive.
The question was to ask the Minister for Social Protection the plans she has to improve services for those who depend on the respite care grant in view of the fact that that grant was cut last year. The Minister has spent several minutes answering a question that could be answered in four words: We have no plans.
The Minister mentioned that the expenditure on carers in the current year is at €806 million. She will be aware that for every euro the State spends on carers it gets back about €5. The value of the total caring done in this country is estimated to be between €4.5 billion and €5 billion. The Minister will also be aware of the survey published yesterday by the Neurological Alliance of Ireland. It is among a number of surveys which point out that this particular cutback, among other cutbacks, has had a significant impact on carers of people with neurological conditions.
Thank you, Deputy.
At the time of the Social Welfare Bill and the controversy that arose regarding the cut in the respite care grant, various members of the Minister's party said that this was not the be all and end all because, as she said, the respite care grant did not have to be paid at the time of the budget. However, various suggestions were put forward in a Seanad debate, largely by members of the Labour Party, outlining clever ways in which the effect of this cut could be alleviated. The Minister is aware of that debate; she participated in it. Has she considered those suggestions and does she have any plans to implement any of them?
I hear a slight tone of irony in Deputy O'Dea's comments because I am conscious that the Government of which he was a part-----
If the Minister answers the question-----
-----cut the weekly payment to carers-----
I am conscious that the Minister is trying to avoid answering the question.
Please. The Minister has the floor.
Is this the new face the Labour Party is going to present to the public?
I just said I detected a note of irony in the Deputy's voice.
I asked the Minister a simple question.
The Government of which he was a full serving member-----
That is not relevant to the question I asked.
The Minister has the floor.
-----cut the weekly payment to carers by approximately €16.40 per week.
Does the Minister have any suggestions?
That is €850-plus per annum. Therefore-----
The Minister cut it by €6.50 a week.
-----the question the Deputy is asking now is a little ironic. A reduction in any social welfare allowance is difficult at any stage, but I chose as Minister - I take full responsibility for it - unlike Fianna Fáil in Government, which implemented a cut of €8 and a further cut of €8.40 a week-----
And the Minister's one of €6.50.
-----to protect the weekly payment to carers.
The Deputy is well aware that the carer's allowance is one of the few payments in our social welfare system - in that sense, it is unique in Europe - that is not subject to any means test.
That is not true.
The current payment of €1,375 per annum is more than twice the amount of €635 per annum paid in 2002 by the previous Government, of which Deputy O'Dea was a member, and-----
It is 20% less than when the Minister got her hands on it.
-----is higher than it was at the height of the boom in 2006, when it was €1,200 per annum.
Thank you, Minister.
The Deputy, in asking questions, which he is legitimately entitled to do, might also want to reflect on his role and that of his party when in government.
I am asking the Minister about her role.
Deputy, please.
Excuse me. I am asking the Minister about her role in government. The Labour Party came into government based on votes from people to whom they promised they would not cut core social welfare rates. The Minister is well aware that everybody who is in receipt of a carer's allowance is automatically entitled to the respite care grant. Thus, when the respite care grant is cut, that represents a cut in the core rate of social welfare. Regardless of how the Minister juggles it up, that is the reality.
At the time the former chairperson of the Labour Party, Deputy Keaveney, voted against the cut in the respite care grant, other members of the Labour Party who were also wrestling with their consciences publicly thought they would be able to persuade the Minister to take on board their suggestions to alleviate the effects of that cut. There was a Seanad debate on the issue, at which various suggestions were put forward. I know the Minister is aware of those suggestions. Is it her intention to turn them all down? Is it her intention to set her face against those suggestions, which were by implication promised to members of the Labour Party in return for their support in getting the Social Welfare Bill through?
My determination as Minister is to do what Fianna Fáil did not do, which is to protect the core weekly social welfare payment for people such as carers.
Everybody gets the respite care grant. It is part of the core payment.
Unlike Fianna Fáil, which imposed a cut €16.40 per week-----
Is this the new face of the Labour Party?
-----I chose to protect the core weekly payment.
It looks like the same old face to me.
The Deputy is asking me-----
The Minister has imposed more austerity in social welfare than did any other Minister with responsibility for that portfolio.
------if I can tell him the contents of the budget which is due next October. I am not in a position to share that with him now. The Deputy will have noted that the tax returns last week were reasonably positive and that the number of people returning to work is also reasonably positive. I say this in an effort to explain to the Deputy that every time 10,000 people leave the live register and the social welfare system and-----
Go off to Canada.
-----return to work, the saving to all those taxpayers who pay tax and PRSI is approximately €90 million.
Thank you, Minister.
If I can continue the strategy-----
It was supposed to be done this year.
-----of getting people back to work and getting more easement in terms of overall social welfare costs-----
The Minister promised she would do that this year, but now she is talking about doing it next year.
-----then, in terms of the budgetary strategy, there will be some room to manoeuvre. There are no commitments at this time in relation to any particular group in respect of the budget.
She has successfully fooled the people. She has conned them again.
The Deputy, as someone who served in government for a long time, is aware of that.
She has hoodwinked them. Deputy Keaveney is the only man who dared to comment.
Youth Guarantee
Aengus Ó Snodaigh
Question:82. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will revise the youth guarantee to make specific positive provisions for young persons with disabilities. [24274/14]
When the youth guarantee was conceived at EU level, the idea was to guarantee all young people a meaningful education, training or a job opportunity. When the Government developed the implementation plan, it sought to limit that guarantee by excluding young people with disabilities. Will the Minister open up participation in the youth guarantee provisions to young people with disabilities?
The Government recognises the importance of increasing participation in employment for people with disabilities, including young people. I am committed to removing any barriers that remain preventing people with disabilities from participating in activation programmes and employment.
In terms of mainstream provision, young people with a disability can access all activation programmes, for example, SOLAS training courses, community employment schemes and JobBridge. Those previously receiving a social welfare payment will either retain that payment or move to a training allowance or temporary employment payment, depending on their individual circumstances.
In addition to facilitating access to its mainstream provision, SOLAS funds customised training for people with disabilities provided by a range of specialist training providers. The Department of Social Protection also provides a wide range of income and work-related supports specifically for people with disabilities. These include the EmployAbility service, formerly the supported employment programme. This facilitates the integration of people with disabilities into paid employment in the open labour market. Also included are a number of other supports specifically for employers, including the wage subsidy scheme, which pays an employer a subsidy for employing a person with a disability, the work equipment adaptation grant, the employee retention grant and the disability awareness scheme.
In addition, the Department launched the disability activation project, DACT, at the end of 2012. This is based in the Border, midland and western region and covers four specific strands associated with the employment of people with disabilities, including progression programmes for young people with a disability. DACT will provide invaluable guidance as to how best to develop further effective activation measures generally for people with disabilities into the future.
My Department funds the Willing Able Mentoring, WAM, programme, which helps to bring graduates and employers together to promote access to the labour market for graduates with disabilities. As we roll out the youth guarantee, I very much hope that those with disabilities, particularly the young, will be involved.
Everybody would hope for that but the problem is that young people with disabilities are specifically excluded from the youth guarantee. The Minister has an opportunity to correct that before the youth guarantee is developed any further. My question seeks to have disabled youth specifically included and to have a specific amount of funding set aside just for them. Most of the allowances and measures the Minister mentioned are not specific to young people.
My question was on the youth guarantee. Does the Minister intend at this stage to amend the youth guarantee and its documentation rather than wait for a promised review to ensure there will be no discrimination against young people with a disability? Will she try to assure organisations such as WALK, which made a presentation to the Joint Committee on Education and Social Protection last month and which was concerned, that there will be no discrimination and that measures will be implemented to enhance, rather than take away from, the opportunities, small as they are, for young people who are disabled?
From visiting and meeting many of the groups and organisations that work with young people with a disability, sometimes intellectual and sometimes physical, I realise there is significant pent-up demand to allow young people with a disability to participate in the labour force as well as in all the educational opportunities that the State has to offer. I am sure the Deputy supports this objective. As the Deputy knows, I, as Minister, have opened up areas of opportunity in social protection that were not focused on previously, including in respect of young or older people with a disability.
With regard to the youth guarantee and its initial layout in terms of how Europe has indicated it wants to proceed, the relevant authorities have been speaking about young people who are unemployed. Obviously, somebody in receipt of an allowance in regard to a disability is not technically on the live register but may very well wish to participate properly in work and educational opportunities. I would encourage him or her to do so as much as possible-----
Thank you, Minister.
-----as I have done in other areas, as we progress the negotiations with Europe to commence the youth guarantee. The scheme is currently being piloted in the Ballymun area. I am very anxious to see full provision for young people with disabilities.
Thank you, Minister. I call Deputy Ó Snodaigh.
However, it is important that the existing opportunities are fully maintained for young people with disabilities because they are popular.
I thank the Minister and I hope she lives up to a commitment she seems to be making. I want, if at all possible, for her to list the new measures under the youth guarantee, rather than existing measures, and what portion of additional youth guarantee funding, not existing funding, will go to ensure there is work available for young people with disabilities. As I said, the EU has provided the money and it has requested that it be told only when matters have progressed to the point of spending it. However, it did not put limits as to whether somebody has a disability or not. It would be wrong if Ireland was one of the states that limits access to the opportunities the youth guarantee will hopefully present to young people into the future. That would be a bad day for Ireland.
The issue is that we get the fullest use of the existing schemes. I want to say to employers who may be listening or reading this, if it is reported in the media, that we offer, through the Department of Social Protection, very significant wage subsidy schemes for employers who take on people with a disability of any age although, of course, this includes young people. Many people in organisations dealing with young people with a disability are very keen to see that scheme expanded, as I am. Measures include the wage subsidy, the adaptations scheme which, for example, provides for small-level grants for physical adaptation of premises, if necessary, and the mentoring scheme provided both to the employer and to the young person.
Thank you, Minister.
I am very familiar with some of the work that is being done in this area and know it is very important in helping young people to access employment successfully, either on a full-time or a part-time basis, whether it is done under that scheme or in the wider context of the youth guarantee. I hope the Deputy shares with me, as he probably does, the common goal of seeing more young people able to take up employment opportunities that are, as I said, either full-time or part-time, and while they must take into account that they may have a limitation in one area-----
Thank you, Minister.
-----employers should be aware of all the other marvellous creative things they can bring to employment. I want to ask employers to consider the possibility of including in their organisations people with a disability.
Thank you. Before we move to Questions Nos. 83 and 84, I ask Members to stay within the time limits. It is not fair to other Deputies who are waiting for questions. I call Deputy Joan Collins.
Rent Supplement Scheme Payments
Joan Collins
Question:83. Deputy Joan Collins asked the Minister for Social Protection the mechanism her Department has in place to respond to a family or persons facing eviction from private rented accommodation because a landlord is increasing the rent. [24276/14]
Willie O'Dea
Question:84. Deputy Willie O'Dea asked the Minister for Social Protection when she will review the caps on the rent supplement schemes; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [24273/14]
The Minister is aware there are now more families being forced to become homeless because of the increase in private rents around the city, particularly in my area, Dublin 12, where rents have gone up by some 14% to 16% in the past six months. We are trying to manage a situation where people are coming in to us, saying their rents have been increased and they cannot get anywhere else because landlords are not accepting rent allowance, and have now gone so far as to put "No rent allowance" or "Work reference only allowed" on e-mails when looking to accept tenants. I want to know what procedure the Department has in place to deal with those issues.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 83 and 84 together.
The Government has provided over €344 million for the rent supplement scheme in 2014, the purpose of which is to provide short-term income support to assist with reasonable accommodation costs of eligible people living in private rented accommodation who are unable to provide for their accommodation costs from their own resources.
There are approximately 76,000 rent supplement recipients, of whom over 50,000 have been in receipt of a payment for more than 18 months. Maximum rent limits are generally reviewed every 18 months. The most recent review was completed in June 2013, with revised rent limits introduced on 17 June 2013. Despite pressures on the social protection budget, the last review saw rent limits increase in line with market rents in some areas, including Dublin and Galway. with Dublin limits increasing by a weighted average of 9%.
A new rent limit review has commenced within the Department and will feed into the budgetary process. This review will involve a comprehensive analysis of information from a range of sources, including rental tenancies registered with the Private Residential Tenancies Board, the Central Statistics Office rental indices and websites advertising rental properties. In this regard, the current difficulties in the rental market and with rent supplement relate to a shortage of supply of suitable properties. I am concerned that raising rent limits as such is not the solution to the problem. It is likely to add to further rental inflation and impact not only on rent supplement recipients but also on many lower income workers and students who are paying their rents out of their private resources.
The Government has recently launched its construction strategy with the aim of increasing supply generally. In addition, the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, has set out a very clear objective for local authorities to release vacant local authority housing and NAMA units are also coming on stream. I am fully aware that in some areas, particularly urban areas, prospective tenants, including those seeking access to rent supplement, are finding it increasingly difficult to secure accommodation owing to reduced availability. We have made arrangements to allow customers of the scheme who are facing difficulties to bring their situation to the attention of staff in the Department's community welfare service, CWS, who have considerable experience in dealing with customers and will continue to make every effort to ensure their accommodation needs are met. Staff have discretionary powers to award a supplement for rental purposes in exceptional cases where it appears the circumstances of the case merit it.
The CWS, including through its work in the homeless persons unit and the asylum seekers and new communities unit, works closely with local authorities and other stakeholders to facilitate homeless persons in accessing private rented accommodation. Where possible, this ensures people are diverted away from homeless services and towards community-based supports. In addition and in view of the current supply difficulties, the Dublin Region Homeless Executive, in conjunction with the Dublin local authorities and voluntary organisations, has agreed a protocol with the Department in order that families at risk of losing existing private rented accommodation can have more timely and appropriate interventions made on their behalf. These operational arrangements are being put in place and it is expected that the initiative will be launched towards the middle of this month.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The Department's strategic policy direction is to transfer responsibility for recipients of rent supplement with a long-term housing need to local authorities under the housing assistance payment, HAP, scheme. Officials are working closely with those in the lead Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government in piloting the HAP scheme in Limerick with further roll-out to selected local authorities during the year.
I put it to the Minister that it is not a question of supply but of landlords increasing rents to a level that people receiving rent allowance cannot pay. It is also due to many landlords specifying "no rent allowance" or "work references only". That is a form of apartheid towards unemployed people who need rent allowance to secure private rented accommodation. I am glad to hear the Minister defining clearly the intervention of community welfare officers because I have found the approach to be ad hoc in terms of who to approach to deal with the matter.
For example, the bank has taken over the house of a girl from Tallaght who contacted me. She has five children and the local authority cannot provide her with housing. She has been told to move out of the house by 28 July, but she has nowhere to go. She is trying everywhere for accommodation. If the Minister could e-mail the information she provided for the House earlier to every Deputy and community welfare officers, it would help.
If the Deputy makes the details of the case to which she referred in Tallaght available to me, I will pass them to the community welfare service in Tallaght with the permission of the family she is dealing with because the objective has to be to keep families in homes. The practice of landlords of indicating through websites that rent allowance is not acceptable is not helpful. On the other hand, when one website took down the statement, a number of agencies dealing with people in accessing rented accommodation did not believe it was helpful. There is, therefore, a slight difference of opinion. I do not like to see such a blanket exclusion, but agencies want to know if a landlord is interested in somebody who may be in receipt of rent supplement.
The Minister has established a protocol with community welfare officers in the Dublin region. While I fully appreciate this, I remind the House that there is a country outside Dublin and that we have similar problems in Limerick and every other urban area. Will the Minister give us a commitment that she will consider establishing a similar protocol in other areas such as Limerick where there are pressing problems? Perhaps she is correct that the solution is not simply to increase the flow of State money to landlords. The figures I have suggest the top 20 earning landlords last year received €5 million from the State in sums ranging from €180,000 to €578,000 to an individual at the top of the scale. That is one side of the story, but, on the other hand, the difficulty is that 76,000 people are in receipt of rent allowance and that 90,000 are waiting for social housing. My experience in Limerick of rent supplement is that the caps are no longer realistic relative to the rents being charged. Up to now, there was a nod and a wink scenario whereby a tenant would pay the landlord under the counter, but even that arrangement which is illegal can no longer apply because rent supplement recipients cannot afford the increased rents. The Minister has said she has no evidence of this practice, but I have plenty of it. We are facing an imminent problem. I am dealing with people who will become homeless in the next few weeks. What can they do?
With regard to the position in Dublin, the community welfare service, the homeless persons unit, the HSE's asylum seekers and new communities unit, Departments and agencies dealing with housing, the local authorities and other stakeholders are coming together to facilitate homeless people in accessing private rented accommodation. The community welfare service in Limerick provided a fantastic service during the recent flooding in the city for people who had, unfortunately, been flooded by setting up special clinics, including on the estates particularly affected by flooding.
If the Deputy has an interest in seeing a similar extension of services in Limerick, I will refer back to him with a specific response on the situation in Limerick.
That service should be set up where it is needed throughout the country. Even if it is not necessary now, it will be needed very soon. This is not just a phenomenon in Dublin; it has happened in Cork and other urban areas. The Minister should immediately instruct community welfare officers and inform local representatives and the local authorities that if a problem arises where somebody could find himself or herself homeless within a period of time, they should step in. We are advising people who approach us to hold on to the houses they are in because if they have nowhere else to go, they must stay there until they receive some assistance or find somewhere else to live. If we do not build social houses, this will be a tsunami, as Fr. Peter McVerry said. If there was a tsunami tomorrow, we would be building houses immediately to try to replace the ones lost. These are people who are losing the roof over their heads; therefore, there must be a more urgent response throughout the country.
Community welfare officers in Limerick did a tremendous job during the flooding. I would appreciate it if the Minister referred back to me as quickly as possible as I have an interest in this issue. The difficulty is that I do not know what advice to give. I will take a leaf from Deputy Joan Collins's book and advise them to simply stay in the house, even if they cannot afford to pay the increased rent. We are facing imminent problems of homelessness.
I have a question about the move to the housing assistance payment, HAP. The Government has been promising this move for some time, whereby responsibility will be transferred from the Department of Social Protection to the local authorities. The scheme is part of the programme for Government and was supposed to be piloted in Limerick. I checked with the local authority in Limerick yesterday. The Minister has said there are 76,000 people in receipt of rent allowance. Limerick is the only place in which the HAP scheme has been initiated and only 40 of the 76,000 have transferred to it. That is approximately one half of 1% and we are 75% into the lifetime of the Government. When will the HAP scheme take off in a realistic way? Forty people out of 76,000 at this stage is pathetic.
The Deputy has extensive experience of membership of the Government and during the long period in which Fianna Fáil was in government there was much talk but never any action on this important issue. If people are renting and likely to be renting in the long term, our aim and objective are to ensure a family has secure long-term accommodation. That is the best and most stable solution for them. It has taken a significant amount of work and I am very grateful to the local authorities in Limerick which have undertaken pioneering work in this regard, as they have in respect of Gateway, to install systems which are new to local authorities. To refer back to the comments made by Deputy Joan Collins, local authorities have housing departments and specific expertise in assessing the suitability of accommodation and so forth. The Department of Social Protection which is more of a payments agency would not have the level of resources or skills local authorities have related to housing.
Staff in the community welfare service have discretionary powers to award a supplement for rental purposes in exceptional cases where it appears that the circumstances of the case so warrant it. These discretionary powers are available when dealing with, for example, people who are homeless or at risk of losing their home.
That is what is happening in terms of what has been established in Dublin, where there is co-ordination among officials in different agencies dealing with those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. In Limerick, those officials have the same discretionary powers. However, I will speak to the Minister of State, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, about co-operation with Limerick City and County Council and whether arrangements there could mirror those in Dublin.
National Internship Scheme Funding
Aengus Ó Snodaigh
Question:85. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Social Protection if her Department has researched and estimated the total loss to the Exchequer, including social welfare payments made and tax and PRSI forgone, which potentially arises where employers opt to engage an intern under the JobBridge scheme rather than employing someone on the minimum wage; and if so what would that loss be if 5%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% and 50% of JobBridge placements involved such displacement respectively. [24275/14]
I am asking the Minister to acknowledge and publish the figures on the very significant costs of the JobBridge scheme. Not only does each JobBridge position cost the Exchequer a weekly social welfare payment plus €50, it also incurs a cost to the Exchequer in terms of taxes and PRSI foregone because of displacement where jobs are not advertised and filled as they ought to be. I ask the Minister the total cost to the Exchequer of the JobBridge scheme given the assumptions on displacement.
The Department will spend close to €1.1 billion this year in a range of employment, education and internship schemes. The major scheme is the community employment scheme, with expenditure of close to €358 million. The back to work allowance accounts for close to €113 million, while JobBridge spending stands at €82 million. All modern economies invest in education, training and work experience with a view to developing people's careers over their working lifetimes. In addition, various European studies have shown that young people who are not in employment, education or training are seriously at risk of becoming long-term unemployed, with associated poor life outcomes.
JobBridge internships are designed to break the vicious circle whereby unemployed job seekers need experience to secure job offers but cannot gain such experience without a job. In the past, one of the barriers faced by job seekers in building up that experience was that they lost their social welfare payments if they took up work experience opportunities, as they were deemed to be unavailable for work. This problem was compounded by additional costs incurred, such as travelling to and from the location of their work experience. As Minister, I introduced JobBridge to remove these barriers and open up a new pathway to employment via internships.
I am pleased to say that since its launch in 2011, JobBridge has provided a valuable work experience and development opportunity to just under 30,000 unemployed job seekers, of whom approximately 23,000 have completed the programme. There are just under 7,000 persons currently engaged on internships. More importantly, independent research indicates that the rate of progression to employment via JobBridge is higher than under any other domestic scheme and significantly higher than comparable schemes elsewhere in Europe. The research found that 61% of interns entered paid employment within five months of completing their internships.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
The research, published in April last year, also examined the displacement and deadweight impacts of JobBridge to estimate the value for money to the Exchequer of the scheme. In summary, the data indicated a displacement impact of just over 6%. The research indicated that JobBridge, based on 2011 and 2012 performance, and contrary to the suggestion in the question that it would give rise to opportunity costs, generated positive value to the Exchequer of approximately €15 million over a full year.
The Minister is probably aware of the economist and researcher Michael Taft. He has outlined an example of a large company taking on 14 young JobBridge interns for six months instead of recruiting at the minimum wage, which the company should be encouraged to do. It might even be encouraged to take on staff under a JobsPlus mechanism. In the example, the loss to the Exchequer over the six months includes the €144 per week social welfare payment plus the €50 top-up and lost employer PRSI of €765, which is not included in the Minister's figure of €82 million. There is also the fact that the income tax that would have been paid had someone been employed directly is lost. In this example of 14 young interns, JobBridge costs the Exchequer €81,000 while the company receives the equivalent of a subsidy worth €136,000.
Can the Minister confirm the full cost of the displacement in the workplace in terms of pay and conditions is included in the €82 million she mentioned rather than just the subsidy paid on top of the social welfare payment?
Economists like the one mentioned talk about displacement effects and the people who would have got work anyway. Based on research from 2011 and 2012, contrary to the suggestion of Deputy Ó Snodaigh about opportunity cost, JobBridge generated positive value to the Exchequer of €15 million over a full year. Perhaps what the Deputy's economist is failing to take into account is where people get a start and work experience. As a society, we put great emphasis on education but people come out of education at various levels having done the leaving certificate, a degree, a masters and, in the case of some people I have come across, a doctorate, but they have no work experience. In a labour market where it is difficult to get a job, not having that magic thing of some work experience means good people cannot be seriously considered by employers for vacancies. If they get a start with JobBridge, they get the experience. The research shows that, subsequently, over 60% of them go on to be in paid employment five months later. We must look at the totality of the return to the individual, to the company and to the organisations that use their services. This includes community organisations that go out of their way to give interns high quality work experience. Then, people get a start in the labour market.
Michael Taft is not my economist and hopefully he is nobody's economist. I think he is an independent economist and was probably closer to the Minister's party in the past than mine. The Minister mentioned independent research but she has never quoted the following fact from her Indecon report. One of the questions to the employers was whether they would employ someone if JobBridge was not available, which is the displacement level. The level is 29%, as 29% of host companies said that, in the absence of JobBridge, they would have offered paid employment to the interns. Some 29% were willing to admit publicly that they were glad they could scam the Government, get the subsidy and gain a competitive advantage over companies close by. The question is what the full cost to the Exchequer is and, as pointed out in the Indecon report that the Minister is forever quoting at me when I raise JobBridge, some 30% of the companies would have employed someone. That would have led to more money for the Exchequer and more money in the pockets of at least 30% of people. JobBridge is now being made compulsory, forcing people into the scam. It should be changed.
Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh does a great disservice to the 30,000 people who have done JobBridge on an entirely voluntary basis at over 13,000 host organisations range from SMEs, larger companies, community organisations and not-for-profit organisations of various kinds.
And multinationals.
The Deputy does people a great disservice to describe their attempts to get back on their feet or, having finished various courses including high-level college courses, to get a job. It is a bit sad that Sinn Féin should decry-----
Companies should pay these people.
It is regrettable. Is Sinn Féin's view of Ireland that we will all be on social welfare and does it want no one to be at work? Sinn Féin seems to want no one to be at work.
The Minister is not at the Labour Party hustings now.
The scheme is to allow people who have completed education and are, in the current market, unable to get employment-----
Paid for their work.
Please allow the Minister to continue.
The Indecon study showed a displacement rate of 6%. If the Deputy studied displacement rates, he would know that this is an extraordinarily low rate. In fact, the return to the State from the people who participate in JobBridge every year-----
The figure is 29%.
-----and then get a job and leave the social welfare system has been €15 million for each of the past two years.
Look at the figure in the report - 29%.
I am telling the Deputy what the figures are. The saving has been €15 million.
The Indecon report has a figure of 29%. The Minister is wrong. She has not read it.
The report states that 89% of the people who participated in JobBridge were very satisfied with the experience.
Twenty-nine percent of the companies have written people off.