May I give a few minutes of my time to my colleague from Donegal, Senator Maloney?
Adjournment Matters. - Student Summer Job Scheme.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome the opportunity to put forward a problem that we have not only in Donegal but nationwide, where hundreds of thousands of brochures were circulated to third level students. Without fear of exaggerating, tens of thousands of students have been bitterly disappointed. The letter that was sent out by the Department of Social Welfare was one that I hoped a student would never receive from any Department.
For a student to be invited to apply for a job, line up a job with a local authority, business centre or industry, apply to and comply with the conditions as set out in the Department's brochure and then to find out by letter that as they are disqualified from receiving unemployment assistance, they will not be eligible to take part in this year's scheme. The letter to which I refer added that if the student wished to apply for unemployment assistance, they should contact their local social welfare officer. It further stated that to qualify for this payment a student must be genuinely looking for work and must satisfy the means test.
No matter what the Minister says or how professionally his statement is prepared, students are now very dissatisfied. The students and I believe this was a badly arranged scheme which has collapsed. I could put forward 100 different scenarios but I am constrained by time. The cover of the brochure of the Irish National Organisation for the Unemployed states that if you think the economy is working, ask somebody who is not.
Not that it is important to give me an answer. However, I ask the Minister to give an answer that will satisfy those who have arranged summer jobs with their local authorities and have received a letter from the Department of Social Welfare telling them they cannot take it up but must sign on. They are caught in a trap. This is the first breakdown in the approach of a student. Everybody who believes in this State and in the future does not want the children of the future to be directed to an unemployment exchange. That is fair comment. I hope nobody in Government would participate in planning to direct a student to draw unemployment benefits. That would be a disaster. I am sure thousands would agree that you can cure cancer but you had better not let a person get hooked on the dole. I do not know how the Minister can encourage young people to do this; it is a major mistake.
A mistake has been made in the Department. Perhaps the Minister is not personally responsible for it but he has ministerial responsibility. I ask the Minister to write to these students and ask whether they have secured a job with a local authority or in industry. It will cost the State more money to pay them unemployment benefit but if the Minister goes ahead with this proposal have no doubt these young people will be demoralised for life. I am shocked and surprised that nobody can see what the Minister is doing to these young students.
I am a member of a local authority and I am certain Senator Maloney will support me. My local authority had to advertise jobs in the newspaper because the students were not available. I have hundreds of letters asking what I am going to do about it. I feel obliged to raise the matter here and ask the Minister for an explanation which will satisfy those whose hopes were dashed by the collapse of this scheme.
Why did the Department send out hundreds of brochures? Nobody in their senses would tolerate that kind of con; it is nothing short of a trick on vulnerable young students. I appeal to the Minister to consider this plea. It will not break the Department to change its attitude; it would not be a big problem for the Minister. He would be rectifying a mistake.
I thank Senator McGowan for sharing time. The main point being raised is that representations were made to many Senators from a large number of constituents who could not participate in the summer jobs scheme or were refused entry to it.
The success of the scheme has been indicated by the number of applicants this year alone. I read that 23,572 people have applied this year and the indications are that the total number of participants at the end of the day will between 16,000 and 17,000. This has proved to be one of the most successful schemes, and it is now in its fourth year.
When the scheme began in 1993, Deputy Woods was Minister for Social Welfare and about 4,400 students participated. Significant changes have taken place since then and the scheme has proved attractive. The fact that students can earn up to a maximum of £600 during the summer holidays is appreciated by everyone concerned, especially parents who find it hard to support their children during the summer if they are unable to find work.
When the scheme began it was intended primarily to benefit students from lower income families and to be seen as a support for them. The problem I, and I am sure many others, find is that many of the representations are coming from families where both the husband and wife are working. In one case in my town, a student, whose parents have good salaries, got a job in a local authority area. In another case a young girl was refused entry to the scheme but the daughter of a big farmer down the road who had a couple of hundred acres was accepted.
Another problem arises where, when one parent is working, some students are being cut off because of the means test. In some cases it is extremely hard on the student when they have lost out because they are only a few pounds over the limit. There is something seriously wrong when one considers the salaries of some parents whose son or daughter is accepted on the scheme compared to cases where only one parent is working and students are refused participation in the scheme.
Senator McGowan touched on one of the most embarrassing aspects of the scheme. Students who have been refused a place on the scheme have been encouraged to apply for unemployment assistance if they are unable to find employment. I thought the intention of the scheme was to avoid people claiming social welfare at an early age.
I have outlined some of the existing problems. I ask the Minister for a satisfactory answer because the problems need to be ironed out at this stage. It is not good enough that some people can con the system while genuine applicants are being refused entry.
Again, I thank Senator McGowan for sharing his time.
First, the scheme being operated this year in no way represents a mistake or a cutback in the allocation. The opposite is, in fact, the case. The scheme has not collapsed, as the Senator alleged, but is working very well. The fact that so many students are complaining because they cannot get on the scheme is an indication of its popularity. A sum of £3 million was allocated towards the scheme in the 1994 budget and £6 million was allocated towards it in 1995. Arising from the improvements I made to the scheme in 1995, which I am not aware of the Senator praising at any time, I succeeded in obtaining an additional £4 million, which brought it up to £10 million, to cover the increased demand for the scheme. This year a further sum of £10 million has been allocated for the scheme.
The number of students participating in the scheme rose from 4,400 in 1993 to just under 16,000 last year, largely because of the improvements I introduced. Given the growth in demand for the scheme, I am determined to ensure that those students at whom the scheme is principally targeted will be given a place on it if they cannot find other summer work. It is entirely unreasonable and impractical for Oireachtas Members to argue there should be a place for everyone who applied, regardless of means or other social welfare entitlements. It is particularly odd for a Fianna Fáil Senator to demand this kind of expenditure when his party leader is demanding at the same time that I cut back on social welfare expenditure. That is a fact.
That is not true.
At present we have 60,000 third level students in universities, 37,000 regional technical college students and 57,000 second level students who have completed their leaving certificate. I have been urged to include all these categories of students at various times by various Senators and Deputies. The cost of such an extension, if only half of those who are qualified participated in the scheme, would be around £45 million.
With a sum of £45 million I could increase unemployment assistance rates by 5 per cent, giving a weekly increase of approximately £3 in personal rates of payment; or increase carer's allowance by 225 per cent, giving a weekly increase of approximately £150 in personal rates of payment; or increase child benefit by 15 per cent, giving a monthly increase of approximately £4 per child. Are Senators seriously suggesting I should spend £45 million providing summer work for students many of whom are better off than those entitled to social welfare? It does not bear thinking about, particularly when Fianna Fáil, as I said, is demanding I spend less on social welfare, not more.
I made significant improvements in the scheme last year by increasing the amount payable per student from £520 to £600. That level of support has been maintained this year. I also allowed third level students with even a minimum entitlement under the means tested unemployment assistance scheme to take part. Therefore, a person can qualify for the full £600 even if they are found to qualify for only £1 in unemployment assistance. These changes resulted in a very significant increase in the number of students participating in the scheme. In 1994, 9,200 students took part, while last year the number jumped to just under 16,000.
All the improvements I introduced last year remain in place, except for the £200 bonus for students whose sole parental income was social welfare. This bonus gave rise to many anomalies. In some cases a student's parents could be working and have take home pay very little in excess of potential social welfare entitlements. In addition, I felt it would be fairer to use this money to give a greater number of less well off students an opportunity to participate in this year's scheme. The continued popularity of the scheme is a testament to the value of the improvements I made and has given rise to the increasing numbers of disappointed students who now want to participate.
The underlying purpose of the scheme when it was introduced in 1993 was to provide income support for the less well off third level students who were disqualified by the then Fianna Fáil led Government from receiving unemployment assistance during the summer months if they could not find work. Students who are not affected by the Fianna Fáil cut in social welfare for students, such as mature students and students who have completed their courses of education, can qualify for unemployment assistance if they are unable to find work and satisfy the normal means test.
I would like to reiterate and emphasise once again that there are no financial cutbacks in this year's scheme. The same amount of money is being provided as was available in 1995. I have refocused the scheme this year to ensure that the maximum number of eligible students — I emphasise the word "eligible"— who need income support from my Department and who would get it but for the abolition of their unemployment assistance entitlement by a Fianna Fáil led Government, are allowed to participate. To date, a total of 24,763 students have applied to take part in this year's scheme, which is about 1,800 more than last year, and over 17,100 students have been approved to date by my Department to take part in the scheme, which is greater than the number who took part last year.
In relation to the letter being sent out to students, Senator McGowan claimed that I am advising people to claim unemployment assistance. I am not doing anything of the kind. I am doing in that letter what I am obliged to do in law, which is to tell people who are refused a benefit what their rights are. If they do not qualify under the student summer jobs scheme and if their means are below a certain level, they may be entitled to unemployment assistance if they are actively seeking work. The letter is advising them of their rights — nothing more or less.
In relation to the claim that a child of a big farmer is in receipt of the summer job certificate, that clearly arises because the person concerned is providing wrong information to the Department. Given the numbers who have applied and the degree of flexibility which we seek to use in order to make the process as unbureaucratic as possible, it is not possible to check every item on every claim, but we do our best. A significant number of people have failed to get on the scheme because they do not qualify for it. I do not know if the Senator said there was a person with a certificate whose parents are both working. Unless they are both on very low pay, incorrect information must have been provided.
The point was also made that many people have been refused because their means were marginally in excess of the unemployment assistance rate. I have arranged within my Department to have all of the refusals which were made on that basis reviewed. We are allowing those applications where the income is found to be £1, £2 or £3 over the rate because we do not want to exclude people. However, we have to remain within our budget and ensure as far as we can that those who are entitled to be on the scheme get on it. For every person we allow onto the scheme who is not entitled to be there, either on the basis they have an underlying entitlement to unemployment assistance or have excess means, we are excluding somebody who has that right and has no other means of income because they are not entitled to unemployment assistance and cannot find work. We are attempting to apply this scheme fairly.
Senator McGowan mentioned a person who found a job with a local authority and then found that he or she was not entitled to avail of the scheme. The fact is that such a person's right to seek a job is based on their having a job certificate from the Department of Social Welfare. The local authority or anybody else is not entitled to offer a job to somebody who has not got a job certificate from the Department of Social Welfare. The error is on the part of the local authority, not on the part of my Department.
There has been a complaint about us distributing hundreds of thousands of brochures on information regarding this scheme. We are doing what we are duty bound to do to ensure that as many students as possible who may be interested in the scheme can find out the basis of it, assess whether they may or may not be entitled to it, apply for it and if they qualify for it to get onto it. To do otherwise would be a dereliction of our duty to notify people who may be entitled to participate in this scheme.
I reject claims that this scheme is a mistake or that mistakes have been made. It is a good scheme, it is working very well, the work that the students are doing is excellent and the work provided by the sponsors is excellent. The scheme has provided enormous social benefits in communities where it is operating.
The fact that some students do not qualify for it is because their family means are over the unemployment assistance level or because they have an underlying entitlement to unemployment assistance if they do not get alternative work. Students who are entitled to this scheme are those who were denied unemployment assistance by Fianna Fáil since 1993.
That is not true.
The Seanad adjourned at 8.45 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 4 July 1996.