Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:2 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Minister for Labour if he intends to undertake any review of the social employment schemes; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Social Employment Schemes.
Tomás MacGiolla
Ceist:9 Tomás Mac Giolla asked the Minister for Labour if he has satisfied himself that FÁS have been provided with sufficient funds for the social employment schemes; if he has any plans to increase the funding; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
John Connor
Ceist:28 Mr. Connor asked the Minister for Labour if he will consider allowing unemployed persons aged 20 and above to qualify for training-employment on social employment schemes thereby altering the present regulation that precludes persons under 25 years from qualifying for places on such schemes; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2, 9 and 28 together.
The funding available for the social employment scheme in 1991 is £67 million approximately comprising £58 million approximately Exchequer resources and EC assistance of £9 million. This level of funding will allow an average of 10,700 participants on the scheme each week during the year of whom over 10,000 will be new people starting in 1991. This level of funding is evidence of the Government's commitment to the long term unemployed and there are no plans to provide further funding this year.
The scheme is the principal manpower intervention to assist older long term unemployed persons. I have no plans to change the eligibility conditions of the scheme to allow participation by persons aged between 20 and 25 as this could only be done at the expense of those whom the scheme was designed to assist.
I have already advised the House that I intend to carry out a review of the allowances payable under the scheme later this year.
I notice that the Minister concentrated on the question of funding. Is he aware that to some extent the purpose of the scheme is being undermined by the fact that in the highest unemployment areas there seems to be the lowest uptake of the scheme? For example, is the Minister aware that as a proportion of the live register there is an uptake of 11.1 per cent in the midlands region and over 8 per cent in the western region but in the area of Dublin West and Kildare the uptake is just over 3 per cent? Does the Minister consider that this disproportionate uptake as a proportion of the live register in some of the areas where unemployment is most endemic is a cause for a review of the scheme?
When I spoke about the review I was talking primarily about the operation of the scheme in terms of the age of participants. The quota is worked out on the basis of a percentage of the live register. The discrepancy arises in that a greater number of areas used the local authority social employment schemes from the outset. There have been a number of changes in the allocation to each region based on who used the local authority schemes, and that has created discrepancies. In the last few years I have made a number of adjustments to those schemes. For example, Cork and Waterford opted out and we transferred their quotas to other areas. It is true that some of the areas of highest unemployment are not getting the higher quota. That is based on the fact that when they had a higher quota they did not take it up. In the last year or so we adjusted the figures on a quarterly basis if it seemed that the full annual quota would not be taken up. I think that is the best way to operate the scheme.
The Minister said that some of the areas of highest unemployment were not taking up the higher quota when they had it. Does that not confirm that it is the older, more established communities that are best capable of taking advantage of a scheme like this? When you look at an area like Dublin West, some of which I happen coincidentally to represent, where the communities are new and the infrastructure that exists in other parts of the country does not exist there, that is being further disadvantaged by the fact that it does not have the mechanisms to avail of schemes like this. Has the Minister any intention of reviewing the rates that people who participate in these schemes can claim arising from the fact that that also seems to be an obstacle to participation in certain cases?
In answer to the second part of the question, we will again review the rates this year. We had a number of debates at various Question Times about adult and child dependants. Over the last two years we have moved from a position where about 17 per cent would have had only one dependant — or none — to one where 48 per cent have dependants. The scheme has worked well because it was targeted more to the long term unemployed.
It is a sign of desperation.
The £11 per child is an incentive. Before this there was no child allowance and a person would lose money on social welfare. However, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of older, long term unemployed who could not benefit from the scheme unless they were single. In relation to the new integrated area and company schemes, the lack of a sponsor in areas of high unemployment militates against using the numbers. It is very difficult at times to organise a sponsor even given the builtin services in the scheme. However, using the new company base, there is no reason for them not being able to use the quota; FÁS are involved in the national co-ordination group for companies and they should be able to help. I am glad FÁS are involved because some people have been able to hog the system as a result of the non-compliance of some local authorities in the scheme which went on for a number of years.
Are the schemes which were threatened earlier this month back on course? Will the Minister's helpful intervention be extended to the number of schemes which, I understand, are still at risk? I urge the Minister to review at an early date the areas he indicated in his reply because it is especially urgent in a constituency such as mine.
Acting Chairman
An tAire for a short reply as we must make progress.
I accept the Deputy's point and I thank him for highlighting some of the areas. The problem arose because someone read a letter and sent a circular which was incorrect. Certainly we intend to live up to the quotas in the areas I mentioned.