Vol. 576 No. 1
60 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the reasons behind her decision to increase the unemployment period for eligibility for the back to education allowance from six months to fifteen months; the persons she consulted prior to this decision; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [29101/03]
The back to education allowance is a second chance education opportunities programme designed to encourage and facilitate people on certain social welfare payments to improve their skills and qualifications and, therefore, their prospects of returning to the active work force.
At present, to qualify for participation an applicant must be, among other things, in receipt of a relevant social welfare payment for at least six months. The qualifying period will be increased from six months to 15 months for new applicants intending to commence third level courses of study, with effect from September 2004.
The scheme was always intended for the benefit of people who had difficulty finding employment. For them, the scheme provided an opportunity which might enable them to improve their qualifications and thus their prospects of obtaining work. It was never intended to be an alternative form of support for people entering the third level education system.
One of the factors that influenced me in changing the qualification conditions is the fact that, in practice, some people go on the live register for six months or so specifically to qualify for the back to education allowance. The scheme is intended to assist people with a history of long-term dependence on social welfare. It is not intended to be a parallel third level grant scheme for people who were already planning to study at third level.
The same arguments do not apply at second level. The qualifying condition will remain at 6 months for people who wish to pursue a second level qualification. Time spent pursuing a second level course with the assistance of the back to education scheme will count towards meeting the 15-months qualification condition for the third level option.
Participants already pursuing third level courses of study with the assistance of the scheme will not be affected by this change. In summary the change affects people who have been unemployed for less than 15 months and who wish to commence claiming the allowance in order to pursue a third level qualification.
I have decided to restructure the back to education allowance in this way to ensure that this support retains its focus on the more vulnerable groups in our community, particularly people who do not have a second level education qualification and who are at risk of becoming dependent on social welfare payments on a long-term basis. I want to ensure that available resources are aimed at those in greatest need of an intervention to prevent them from drifting into long-term unemployment. This change recognises the more urgent need for intervention in the case of people who have not completed formal second level education.
I believe I have ensured, in a situation where priorities had to be set and choices made, that those in the greatest need of assistance under the BTEA scheme have been protected.
The Minister will save €2.2 million on a scheme that affects 1,200 people. Alex Ferguson would make that in a month.
I am not Alex Ferguson.
He is not paying a penny in tax on the racehorse Rock of Gibraltar, over which they are fighting in the courts. Last year the Minister would not pay them for the summer months and she is determined to get rid of this scheme.
No.
Are we not better off having people on social welfare in education to get them out of that trap? These people will go on to education, obtain jobs and so come out of the social welfare system.
Last week, the Minister's colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, spoke at a committee of this House. He said that when the White Paper on Adult Education was available for consultation, everyone in the education sector said that if people could be dealt with within the first six months of unemployment, one would have a better chance of getting them into full-time education and qualifying. The Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, said at the committee last week that the changes the Minister is making now are wrong and they will destroy the scheme. Why is the Minister doing that? We should be encouraging people who want to re-enter the education sector to do so.
We saw the report on crime on the "Prime Time" programme on which one of the Minister's colleagues appeared. It would be better, however, to get people on social welfare into the education system so they can qualify from college and will never be on social welfare again. In that way they will be of benefit to the State.
The back to education allowance scheme is affecting only 1,200 people and costs a mere €2.2 million. Tomorrow, if the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, wanted to tax the bloodstock industry he would take in one hundred times that figure. It is wrong to give tax relief to people like Alex Ferguson and other millionaires, while money is being taken from people who need education to re-enter the workforce. The Minister should ask her colleague, Deputy McCreevy, to go back to the old arrangement whereby the period of eligibility for the back to education allowance was six months. If such people re-enter full-time education, they will not have to rely on social welfare in future.
It is like listening to same record over and over again.
No, it is not.
"Wanderly Wagon" and the bloodstock industry.
The Minister is attacking the poor and the weak.
What is the name of that horse? Rock of Gibraltar is pulling the wagon.
That is the Minister's record and it is a damn bad one.
At this stage, I would not mind putting the Deputy on the Rock of Gibraltar myself.
The Minister should answer the point made by the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea.
These schemes were introduced to support people in long-term unemployment.
This is short-term.
The level of long-term unemployment has been reduced considerably. I will not comment on what the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, said because I do not know what he said. Deputy O'Dea and I have been working together with local social welfare offices to support those involved in the literacy and second chance education programmes. There are huge opportunities to get back into education. The most vulnerable people in second level who have absolutely no qualifications are being supported totally. Third level is not an option for everyone in receipt of unemployment or disability benefit. As the Deputy knows, there are abuses in the system. Let us refocus the scheme for those in most need of it.
The Deputy asked what I was doing about the social welfare allowance scheme. It has been brought to my attention that we are paying for people from other EU countries, who are more than entitled to this scheme because they are from the EU. They make themselves unemployed and come over to Ireland for six months' craic. They apply for the back to education scheme, to which they are naturally entitled because they are EU citizens, but that is not what the scheme is for.
Hear, hear.
It is for people we are all representing, who may unfortunately find themselves in a difficult situation where they may need to upskill or change their skills in order to get an educational qualification.
We must move on to the next question as we have exceeded the time for Priority Questions.
I have no intention of reversing this decision. It is one of the best focused schemes and has been of huge advantage to everyone.
And the Minister is taking it away.
The implementation date is September 2004 and we are not getting rid of the scheme.
The Minister wants to be in Europe when there is a referendum but she does not want the Europeans when there is no referendum.
Question No. 61 answered with Question No. 57.
That concludes Priority Questions. We will proceed to Question No. 62. I must remind the House that these ordinary questions are subject to a one minute time limit for supplementary questions and the replies.
