asked the Minister for Labour if he will review the FÁS regulations which require that a person must be in receipt of unemployment assistance to qualify for a social employment scheme placement, in the light of the decision in the case taken by the Employment Equality Agency (details supplied) which found that the Central Statistics Office acted unlawfully in requiring a person applying for a job there to be in receipt of unemployment assistance or unemployment benefit; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - FÁS Regulations.
2.
Two claims are at present before the equality officer to the effect that the qualifying conditions for access to employment under the social employment scheme discriminate against married women.
The case to which the Deputy refers has a number of features in common with the claims. The claims before the equality officer have not been decided and I do not propose at this stage to make a statement on the matter.
Will the Minister not do as he did in relation to Deputy O'Keeffe and admit defeat on this one? I have raised this a number of times already. The Minister must be aware there are 9,500 women over 25 years of age and 3,100 men over 25 years of age who are signing on for unemployment assistance but are not in receipt of money — that is, not counting those who are signing on for unemployment benefit. There is a clear discrimination against them on the basis that they are living at home or living with a spouse, and this is unfair. There are clearly three times as many women denied access to the social employment scheme as a result of this ruling of the Department. On that basis——
This has become a very long question.
It is a very complex issue.
I want to facilitate the Deputy but he may not make a speech.
I am coming to the end of my question. In view of that, will the Minister not agree today that it is time that ruling was removed?
There are a number of issues involved. Two cases are under investigation by the equality officer so I do not want to pre-empt the arguments. Sometime ago before there was equal access to the unemployment assistance scheme by single and married people, perhaps there were more arguments. Means tests are now applied and it is not as discriminatory as it was previously. There is a fundamental difficulty in that the social employment scheme and the other schemes are designed to aid long-term unemployed people. If there is discrimination, particularly in relation to married women as Deputy De Rossa has outlined, it is not discrimination on the basis of sex or marital status but on the basis of economic disadvantage. That is the position, because the purpose of the social employment scheme is to take people off the live register who, because of their conditions, are socially disadvantaged. Because of that I cannot accept the Deputy's argument.
I have to disagree with the Minister. I have no idea how many of the 9,500 women I am speaking about are married but I know that if they are married, even though they may be living with a partner, they are not treated in the same way for assessment of means for unemployment assistance. The other point is, in the circumstances I am talking about the people involved fill all of the requirements other than they are receiving no money from the Department of Social Welfare. So there is clear discrimination in that there are three times as many women excluded from the social employment scheme on this basis. Also, people are being discriminated against in relation to the social employment scheme because they are living either with a spouse or with their mother and father.
The point still holds that there are more people available for the scheme than there are places on it. I am not saying there is not an element of disadvantage in the cases the Deputy refers to. The reason these two people were excluded from the scheme is that both were married and the income of their husbands was taken into account threby excluding them. If we change the scheme——
Their husbands' income would not be taken into account.
——the family income——
If they were not married there would not be any way of proving the woman benefited from a partner's income.
If a person is in receipt only of unemployment assistance and is not in receipt of any other income, he is entitled to take part in the scheme. What the Deputy is arguing for is that combined incomes would not be taken into account for the social employment scheme. That would mean that a high proportion of the present positions would be taken up by other people. The resources being spent on this scheme are extremely high — about £46 million, and this is already going to the socially disadvantaged. There is discrimination on that basis only and not on any other basis.
Has there been an analysis undertaken in the Department of participation rates in the social employment scheme by men and women and by single women and by married women? Is the Minister in a position to tell us what percentage of those who participate in the scheme in its three years in existence have been married women?
There is information but I do not have it available. There has been an assessment.
I cannot and will not permit Question Time to be bogged down on Question No. 2. I have allowed Deputy De Rossa a lot of latitude but he does not seem satisfied. He wants to go on and on. I will allow a brief supplementary and then I am going on to the next question. If the Deputy is dissatisfied, he knows what to do.
I simply wanted to ask for clarification. It is a short supplementary.
You may do so.
Thank you very much. Is the Minister satisfied that the terms applied to this scheme are in line with the EC requirements in relation to the allocation of the European Social Fund?
I believe they are but in a number of member states there have been similar difficulties. One member state is at present fighting a case in the European Court on a scheme similar to the social employment scheme for precisely the same reasons I am outlining, that the discrimination is based on the definition of social disadvantage and not on any other grounds.
The effect of it as it operates, is as I said.
It is our view that the eligibility conditions at present employed and the tests we can apply in terms of identifying the long term unemployed are the most subjective and cost effective. The long term unemployed are the category the scheme was brought in to try to assist.