asked the Minister for Labour if he will consider payment of the equivalent of a free fuel allowance to the long-term unemployed who are availing of social employment schemes; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
35.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Social Employment Schemes Participants.
21.
asked the Minister for Labour if his attention has been drawn to the difficulties being experienced by the promoters of social employment schemes in obtaining suitably qualified participants in urban areas with high levels of long-term unemployment to go on to social employment schemes because of the present unfavourable comparison in rates of allowances and entitlements to persons on social welfare; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
36.
asked the Minister for Labour if he has any plans for improving the conditions of employment of persons on social employment schemes, having regard to the fact that these workers do not have the full benefits of insured workers and do not qualify for various social welfare benefits, such as free fuel, free food and the Christmas bonus; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
51.
asked the Minister for Labour if the rates of payment for the social employment scheme are to be increased in 1990.
I propose taking Questions Nos. 21, 35, 36 and 51 together.
Deputies will be aware that I announced, earlier this week, that from 1 January, 1990, social employment schemes participants will receive an allowance of up to £10 per week for each child dependant. I would also point out that payments under the scheme were increased in July of this year to £65 per week (personal rate) and £92 per week for participants with an adult dependant. I am confident that these improvements will make the scheme more attractive to persons with child dependants and go some way toward alleviating existing problems. All allowances are of course reviewed on an annual basis in the context of the budget. I have no plans to make a payment equivalent to a free fuel allowance, or any other similar social welfare allowance, to participants on the scheme. The scheme is a part-time employment scheme and participants work on average two and a half days per week. Participants may engage in other work or activities during their time off without any abatement of their social employment schemes pay. In these circumstances, I regard the present rates — particularly following the general increases in July and the proposed increase for those with child dependants next month — to be reasonable. In addition increases in the individual rate of payment would, in a situation of limited budgets, have to be at the expense of the numbers participating.
The Deputies will also be aware that I announced, in September, that an extra 1,000 people would be recruited for the social employment scheme in severely disadvantaged urban areas.
I regret the negative form of the Minister's reply but would he not agree that there is a very small number of people on social employment schemes who would qualify for the free fuel allowance and that not all of those who would apply would qualify so that the cost would be extremely small? Is the Minister not aware of the sense of grievance of these people as often they have a smaller total income than they had when on social welfare and they are now also deprived of the free fuel allowance? Would the Minister not consider the matter again?
I do not have the numbers but based on some of the figures I read out in response to an earlier question by Deputy Mitchell, there could be a smaller figure so I will undertake to examine it.
This highlights the fact that the Government do not know what they are doing as in the case of those on the average industrial wage versus those on social welfare. Deputy Stagg's point is correct. Would the Minister not agree that it is hard to expect unemployed people to take up FÁS and social employment schemes, if by doing so they will lose their free fuel allowance and their Christmas bonus and be worse off? That is what we are asking people to do. We are asking them to take up jobs and be worse off.
They will not be worse off.
Are you saying nobody is worse off?
Please listen, Deputy. There is an £18 increase for a single person. The lowest increase is £15. I am prepared to look at it. I have already made a number of changes this year. I will look at Deputy Stagg's point but it would not be possible to give all the allowances for people on the dole to the 11,000 people on social employment schemes. Deputy Stagg is talking about a possible limited number of people.
As long as there are these anomalies we are creating traps.
The Minister said that the single rate is £65 per week and the married rate is £92 yet if a couple are separated and one is supporting the children they are each only entitled to the single rate. There is an anomaly there.
If a dependant is drawing another statutory benefit he will only get the single rate allowance.
Despite the fact that one is supporting children?
One can claim for the dependent children as in the case of a single parent.
I agree with my other colleagues that the Minister's response is extremely disappointing. We all know of cases where only the desperate are driven to avail of the scheme.
Ceist le d'thoil.
Is it not time that access to free fuel, the free food scheme and the Christmas bonus be made available to those people, or alternatively their rates revised? It is undermining the value of the scheme to leave things as they are.
I said I would look at one set of circumstances which were raised by Deputy Stagg. We should remember that people on social employment schemes are not working a full week and one quarter of them are working in other activities with no abatement of their social employment scheme money. The Deputies suggest that people should get all the benefits of the social welfare recipient and be able to engage in other activities. That would not be fair to workers on low incomes who are not getting similar advantages. I will, however, consider what Deputy Stagg has said.
In examing the matter, will the Minister ensure that people on this scheme will not be worse off than they were when drawing unemployment long term assistance and the various allowances that go with it?
They are not worse off.
Some are.
Some definitely are.
The Minister said that 25 per cent of the persons were involved in work on other days. A further 75 per cent do not have work because there is none available.
They still will not be worse off because even allowing for the Christmas bonus or any of the other allowances that would work out at about £136 per week. The personal rate for single persons is up by £18, with an adult dependant the rate is up by £16 and when children are taken into account there is over £15 of a difference.
Is the Minister aware of the cost of packing a lunch for a man going to work——
We cannot debate this matter today.
——and his bus fare.
Let us have a reply to another question.