Vol. 452 No. 5
1 Mr. J. Walsh asked the Minister for Social Welfare the additional provision, if any, he is making to cope with the extra demands on social welfare due to the cutbacks in the community employment schemes; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8360/95]
Provision for unemployment payments in 1995 has been made on the basis of the forecast of average registered unemployment of 266,000 set down by the Minister for Finance on budget day in the document Economic Background to the Budget. This forecast takes account of a range of macro-economic factors and of the expected impact of participation by unemployed people in various programmes aimed at getting them back into the active workforce. The average impact of participation in community employment at the level envisaged in the 1995 budget is, therefore, already reflected in my Department's provision for unemployment payments. Any proposals for adjustment to the community employment participation rate are, of course, a matter for my colleague, the Minister for Enterprise and Employment.
Expenditure on the full range of my Department's programmes is monitored closely as a matter of routine and an additional provision can, if necessary, be sought by way of Supplementary Estimate later in the year.
The Minister is off loading the problem to his colleague, the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, but that will not do very much for the long term unemployed. At budget time did he have discussions with his colleague? Provisions were not made for an estimated 7,000 people who will now come back on to the social welfare payroll? Would it not be a more efficient use of taxpayers money if it was used on community employment rather than on the dole?
I am afraid the Deputy is displaying his ignorance of the way community employment works. I have discussions at various times with my colleagues on a range of issues and during discussions on the budget I discussed the needs of the Department of Social Welfare with virtually all Ministers.
Community employment is the responsibility of the Minister for Enterprise and Employment and in due course he will express his views on how the current situation can be dealt with.
Variations in the live register impacts on unemployment payments expenditure and it costs £3.5 million for every 1,000 persons who have to be paid. The Deputy will appreciate that the Department's expenditure is very large, given the numbers who are unemployed. It is a constant concern of the Department to ensure that unemployed people gain useful employment. The Department has a very effective back to work scheme employing in excess of 6,000 people. The Deputy may be aware of it. Under that scheme a person, during the first year of employment, can retain 75 per cent of his social welfare payments; during the second year he retains 50 per cent of social welfare payments and during the third year 25 per cent of social welfare payments. To imply that the Department of Social Welfare is doing nothing to enable people move from the live register to employment is incorrect.
I defer to the Minister in his expertise, ignorance and arrogance for that matter. Seven thousand people were employed in community employment schemes on heritage and arts projects which were very good for the local community. On community employment people have self-esteem but now they will go on the dole where they have no self esteem. At this late stage will the Minister discuss the matter with his colleague to see whether the Departments of Social Welfare and Enterprise and Employment can continue this universally acknowledged good scheme?
Despite what the Deputy might consider to be arrogance on my part, he seems to be of the opinion that community employment is about to be abolished. It is not.
The Estimates include a provision for an average of 38,500 participants on community employment schemes which, by their nature, are temporary. People participate in the scheme for a year and, depending on the life of the project, may get a further year's extension. More than 50 per cent of the projects under the community employment scheme are once-off. The participants either go back onto the live register or, as a result of their experience on the scheme, find part-time or full-time employment. Instead of implying that the Government is knocking people off community employment schemes when the reverse is the case, the Deputy's party should acknowledge that, when in Government on their own, they agreed Estimates which would have provided for only 26,000 participants on community employment schemes this year.
We have dwelt overlong on this question. There is a time limit.
We did not get an answer to the question.
The Deputy did not get the answer he wanted.
The unfortunate people did not get an answer.
Many people participating in community employment schemes would not be doing so if the Deputy's party were in Government.
The Minister should check that.
