asked the Minister for Social Welfare the objectives of the voluntary work scheme for the unemployed; the performance of that scheme to date based on the objective; if he has any plans to make changes in this programme to improve its performance; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Voluntary Work Scheme.
4.
The voluntary work scheme for the unemployed was introduced in response to representations that unemployed people were unwilling to engage in voluntary work because if they did so their availability for paid employment, and in consequence their entitlement to unemployment benefit or assistance, might be called into question.
The objectives of the scheme are two fold; to make opportunities available to the unemployed for taking up voluntary work and to encourage voluntary organisations to involve the unemployed as much as possible in their activities.
The performance of the scheme to date has undoubtedly been disappointing and a relatively small number of persons only have taken up the facility. I cannot say why the scheme is not used to a greater extent, but it may be that unemployed people, being aware of the existence of the scheme, in many cases engage in voluntary work without going through the formal procedures involved.
The future role of the voluntary work scheme and other schemes for the benefit of the unemployed are being examined in my Department and all possibilities which might provide further encouragement and opportunities for unemployed people will be explored in this context.
Might I ask the Minister to comment on the following, first that the failure to make provision for out-of-pocket expenses for those who might want to participate in the voluntary scheme is a major disincentive to participation? This view has been made known. Secondly, is the grants scheme for voluntary organisations not more capital intensive than labour intensive? Would he consider changes in his scheme to bring it into line with the British scheme which enables grants to be made which are specifically labour orientated rather than capital orientated? This would improve the numbers participating.
The voluntary grants scheme is, as the Deputy says, mainly for capital items because they are once off items, although not necessarily capital items. We provide funds for courses run by, for instance, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, such as special home management courses on a once off basis. A good deal of this work is capital, such as buses for the handicapped and for social service delivery. The health board have the function of dealing with the current requirement. I appreciate that our two activities in that respect overlap to some extent. That is an area that needs further clarification, to say the least. Certainly, I shall look into the matter but the scheme as it stands at the moment is, of course, specifically for these once off grants.
The Deputy also mentioned the question of out-of-pocket expenses. The position is that the organisation concerned may find it possible to pay out of pocket expenses and the Department of Social Welfare have no objection to this; full unemployment benefits may be paid. It may be going too far to provide additional moneys. On the other hand, it is true to say that not many people have taken up the scheme as yet. I will be giving attention to this scheme very early in the New Year with a view to beefing it up and improving it. I want to make people aware of the scheme. There are many voluntary organisations who would like to avail of the services of those who would like to be doing something useful rather than just staying at home. I will be prepared to look at anything which will bring this about.
By way of being helpful to the Minister let me put another suggestion to him. Would the Minister consider reviewing the information which is available at the different employment exchanges, many of which do not seem to be aware of the availability of this scheme? In his review of the scheme would he consider voluntary organisations making as a component of their application out of pocket expenses as this would increase the number of unemployed people involved?
That is an interesting and very helpful suggestion and I will consider it. As one who has done a lot of voluntary work I cannot understand why this scheme is not being taken up. I have been kept nailed down here so much that I have not been able to give it attention. At the beginning of the New Year I will try to reorganise the scheme and to advertise it, not only to the public but also to the staff of the employment exchanges. Oddly enough, this scheme has been in place for quite some time. As Deputies are aware voluntary work has to be recognised as such. I have no difficulty in that regard but I am surprised that in some case locally it has not been recognised as such.
Would the Minister, in his review of the scheme, consider the definition of a voluntary organisation as there seem to be some inconsistent and arbitrary decisions in some parts of the country as to what is and is not a voluntary organisation? For example, I am aware that a group of people who provide a creche for an association of the unemployed have been told that this does not amount to voluntary activity. I ask the Minister to look at the variable definitions and, following his review, issue guidelines as to what is and is not a voluntary organisation.
I will do that.
Would the Minister indicate how long the scheme has been in existence and the number of voluntary organisations and unemployed people who have availed of it? In his review of the scheme, would the Minister recognise the fear which may exist among the unemployed that, notifying an exchange that they are engaged in this kind of activity, may affect their entitlement to benefit, however unreal that fear is? Would the Minister make it specifically clear that entitlement to benefit or assistance, which, as the Minister is aware, depends on the availability for work, will not be affected?
To the best of my knowledge the scheme has been in existence since 1983 although the provision has been in existence for much longer.
It started in 1983.
The scheme was revised in the autumn of 1984. What was the Deputy's other question?
How many unemployed people have availed of the scheme?
That is a separate question and I do not have the information here but I am aware that the number is very small.
The fear among the unemployed of losing their benefit or assistance is a major obstacle to the success of the scheme.
Perhaps that is where clarification is required. If a person is available for work and is genuinely seeking full time work there will be no problem. One has to understand that the requirement that one should be available for work remains. The only condition is that voluntary work cannot be considered as an alternative. I agree with the Deputies that there is a need to clarify the position, to try to improve the scheme and, in particular, to publicise it. We must try to improve the understanding of it at both public and official level. If there are cases similar to the one the Deputy spoke about in regard to the group of people who wanted to provide a creche, I will deal with them. It is a question of clarifying the guidelines.