Deputy Michael Ferris has been given permission to raise on the Adjournment the question of the non payment of Christmas bonuses to people employed on social employment schemes. Deputy Ferris has five minutes.
Adjournment Debate. - Social Employment Schemes Participants.
I thank the Ceann Comhairle for accepting my request to have this matter raised. This subject interests many people particularly those involved in social welfare — the Dublin Welfare Office, the Association of the Unemployed and the social partners — who have been involved with the Government, various political parties and so on. Recently the Minister for Social Welfare announced Christmas bonuses to be paid to a large segment of social welfare recipients. Unfortunately this year, like every other year, people in social employment schemes were excluded.
The Minister for Labour announced in the region of 15,000 extra jobs to be created through the social employment schemes. We are aware of the extraordinarily good work done in communities by people on social employment schemes. When these schemes were recently approved by the national monitoring committee a large number of the people interviewed for participation in the schemes raised questions in relation to the payment of the Christmas bonus. This is a very important payment particularly for families at a time of the year when the budget of social welfare recipients is at its lowest. I appeal to the Minister for Social Welfare and to the Minister for Labour to ensure that people participating in these schemes are not discriminated against vis-a-vis social welfare benefits. As it is, they do not have free fuel or butter vouchers and they do not have disability benefit paid to them in the event of their getting sick. Because the funding for this is from the EC I hope the Minister in his wisdom will include workers on social employment schemes in the Christmas bonus payments as the amount of money is very small compared to the good it would do. At a maximum 15,000 people would be involved and the consequences of that goodwill gesture would be considerable. It would be appreciated by those people and their families. My case rests in pleading with the Minister to actively consider a genuine request from those of us who have been trying to stimulate activity in this area so that we will not have people on the unemployment register while large amounts of community work need to be done.
The Christmas bonus is payable to persons in receipt of long term social welfare payments and to persons who are long term unemployed and in receipt of unemployment compensation payments, also to persons who are in receipt of payments which are directly linked to the rates of unemployment payments. Participants in the social employment scheme are in receipt of payments which are not directly linked to the unemployment payments they were receiving while they were on the Live Register.
The level of payment on the scheme is pitched above that which such persons would be entitled to had they remained on social welfare. The clear intention at all times was that the added increased payments compensated for the loss of added benefits such as the Christmas bonus which persons might be entitled to had they remained on the Live Register.
Earlier this year, I announced increases in the rates payable under the scheme. The rate payable to participants without dependants increased from £65 per week to £69 per week, the rate for an adult dependant increased from £27 per week to £29.50 per week and the rate for a child dependant increased from up to £10 per week per child to up to £11 per week per child.
I introduced the child dependant allowance at the beginning of this year to encourage greater numbers of older long term unemployed to participate in the scheme. At the end of 1989 only 30 per cent of participants had dependants. However, at the end of August, because of the availability of the child dependant allowance, the percentage of participants with adults and child dependants has increased to 48 per cent.
Like all politicians I would like to be in a position to increase the payments to persons depending on social welfare or manpower programme payments for a living. At the same time I must also act in a responsible way by having regard to the capacity of the Exchequer to make such payments and I am using the funds made available to me for the social employment scheme to provide opportunities for the long term unemployed on the basis of normal weekly payments. This year over 11,000 people will participate in the scheme.
The scheme provides the opportunity for persons who have been long term unemployed to become involved in a work related situation, albeit on a part time basis, for one year. The projects undertaken are of significant benefit to local communities. It is generally accepted that participation in the scheme is worth while and helps the long term unemployed to improve their prospects of obtaining employment when opportunities become available. I do not disagree with the points made by Deputy Ferris. It is a matter of Exchequer funding and of what we get from the European Social Fund.
Last year, with the trade union monitoring committee, I undertook to look at some improvements in the scheme and from that commitment arose the £10 per child which is significant because people with three or four children who would not be in the scheme before now get from £30 to £40. That has had a desirable effect. We have also changed a number of other criteria arrangements. Submissions have been put forward in the discussions on the Programme for National Recovery not only on this aspect but on other aspects and I have agreed to look at the proposals. It is unlikely that that would make any difference for this year, but there will be changes in the overall scheme if a programme is agreed.