Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)

We are talking about people who have lost their jobs, who are probably highly qualified in their own area of expertise and who do not need another degree. They have skills and the spirit of entrepreneurship to make their ideas work. The Minister might have seen the "Prime Time" programme recently on the back to work enterprise allowance. Perhaps it influenced her decision. It highlighted the ridiculous situations in which people find themselves by virtue of the way the scheme operates. What was most worrying was the fact that failure to be approved for the scheme in some instances counted against people when they sought financial assistance from banks. There is no logic to the way the Government is approaching those allowances, which deprive people of hope and opportunity. While the one year change is positive, it could have been better.

At the same time the Minister made another decision that did not make any sense in the current economic climate. A decision to give the allowance for only two years is madness. Everybody knows that in this climate it is more difficult to start a business and keep it up and running. We all know of businesses that we thought had stood the test of time, that were going to be here for the long haul, but we have seen them close their doors in recent months. How much more difficult is it for a person who has started a new business without significant financial backing who is reliant and dependent on the back to work enterprise allowance for four years to see him or her through the difficult start up phase? The allowance provided a lift to allow a business to survive. The decision to cut the allowance from four to two years does not make sense. It is especially foolish when one realises that the other alternative is for a person to be on jobseeker's allowance or benefit where he or she will be in receipt of a State payment anyway. Surely it makes more sense to try to facilitate people to stay in employment? I cannot understand why the Minister fails to see that.

The Minister stated in her budget press release that "the intention is to support enterprises who will, in due course, create further employment opportunity" but she is making it extremely difficult for that to happen. The positive changes the Minister has made to the scheme have been damaged by the negative changes. The Government's mantra in recent months has been "jobs, jobs, jobs", yet the steps the Minister is taking and the decisions she is making are not in any way creating the opportunity for employment that makes those jobs a reality or even a possibility.

I welcome the fact that the Minister for Social and Family Affairs has finally seen some common sense on the operation of the back to education allowance. I say "some", because again, while changes have been made, they do not go far enough. It is a pity that it took so long for the Minister to make those changes. I welcome the fact that the jobseekers who have been out of formal education for at least two years can now access the second level back to education allowance once they have been in receipt of jobseeker's allowance or benefit for at least three months. I hope that will help people with low levels of qualification to get back into the education system and to receive formal qualifications.

The early access being provided at third level is insufficient. Up to now there has been a requirement that a person must be in receipt of jobseeker's payment for 12 months before he or she can access the scheme. There have been exceptions in recent times for people in employment action plan areas and people who have received redundancy. However, the most recent figures available to me from the Department show that the numbers who have taken up the scheme are minuscule. My overall figure, which I received in reply to a parliamentary question, is slightly different from that of the Minister. Of the 9,796 people who are recorded as participating in the back to education allowance in November 2008, a total of 113 were awarded statutory redundancy and 75 were referred earlier to the third level option as a result of their participation in the national employment action plan, NEAP. Those figures do not inspire hope that we will see an improvement.

I have been waiting to get the up-to-date figures. I was told they will be available this month but this week the Department informed me it could take another three to four weeks. Perhaps we will see some improvement in take up. That is difficult to say as the figures I expected to have for the debate are unavailable. The reality is that not everybody who loses his or her job is in an employment action plan area or receives a redundancy payment. We have seen many closures of small businesses, restaurants, shops and hotels where people are not able to avail of redundancy payments. I do not see the sense in limiting the scheme in that way.

It is some improvement that the Minister will now allow access to the scheme after nine months if recommended by one of the facilitators of the Department of Social and Family Affairs, as is the case currently if it is recommended by a FÁS employment services officer. I have, however, two difficulties with that. First, I still believe that nine months is too long. The longest timeframe that I would find acceptable for the scheme is six months. Second, how much work does the Minister expect those facilitators to be able to do? We are all in favour of getting as much out of the public service as we possibly can. There are 60 facilitators, and the Minister admitted herself in her budget press release that an average live register figure of 440,000 is likely for 2009 with some estimates putting it higher. That is a mammoth task if each of those facilitators is to deal with each person on the live register, or even a proportion of them. In effect, all I can see happening is that the wait to see a facilitator will replace the three months that the Minister has cut off the requirement for the scheme.

It is important to bear in mind that those are the same 60 facilitators the Minister for Social and Family Affairs announced last July would deal with numbers of young unemployed under 25 and the same facilitators the Minister said would work on "a one to one basis with lone parents". What next for those 60 facilitators? That change is disingenuous. It will not achieve what it needs to achieve and it will not help those who are unemployed in an efficient, effective or meaningful way. 6 o'clock

That brings me to the proposed changes to the jobseeker's allowance for young people outlined in the Bill. Last July, the Minister expressed grave concern over the number of people under 25 on the live register and made a big announcement on how they could avail of the back to education allowance. Clearly that did not work and the number of young people on the live register has grown since. I was not surprised by the Minister's announcement having heard her interview on "News at One" on the subject of cross-Border fraud, during which she clearly supported the amounts paid to young people in Northern Ireland. It was quite clear she was coming around to the idea of cutting young people's social welfare. It is a pity that when she came round to this idea, she did not actually ensure there were alternatives for them.

The National Youth Council of Ireland stated clearly that "the jobs are simply not there and few education and training opportunities have been provided to date". The Minister will know that approximately 17% of young people fail to complete their leaving certificate examinations. The figures in this regard have not improved greatly despite the resources available in recent years. I am extremely concerned that, with the cuts across the board in the education sector, including cuts affecting transition year such that only the school allowance and book allowance will be covered, and the expected scaling down of services in schools to the provision of very basic education, the figure of 17% will possibly rise or, at best, remain the same. Nobody is fooled by the notion of incentivising 18 and 19 year old jobseekers to avail of education and training opportunities to prevent them from becoming welfare dependent. I share the Minister's concerns about the young becoming welfare dependent and about their availing of social welfare immediately after leaving school. However, she has put the cart before the horse to some extent by not ensuring that places are available to these new claimants.

The full-rate adult payment will still be made for those who participate in Youthreach - this is on a pilot footing and applicable to those of 19 years - or full-time courses in a senior travel training centre. Will there be enough places on these courses? It is difficult enough as matters stand to get people to do them. I envisage many more difficulties owing to the position on the incentive that should be in place. I do not believe there will be enough places. If individuals qualify for the back to education allowance, they will still have to have been out of formal education for at least two years. Therefore, what is the position in regard somebody who has dropped out of school in mid-leaving-certificate year and who might be 18 years or almost that age? Such a person will not be eligible for the back to education allowance for a year. He or she can participate in a full-time FÁS training course, but only if there is one available. I ask the Minister to outline in her concluding remarks where the places will be available for young people.

I listened to the Tánaiste's budget speech in the House. I was not convinced that any serious thought had gone into the proposal on activation measures. It is more designed to save €12 million than to incentivise young people. This is demonstrated by the fact that there are not clear facts and figures available to us.

Who will work with the young people? Will it be the same 60 facilitators who are to work with everybody else? It is time the Minister got real in regard to this and appreciated the fact that, no matter how hard-working these 60 people are, they cannot bear the brunt of everything that is happening in the social welfare system. They cannot possibly work with every single target group.

The idea of profiling first-time social welfare claimants to facilitate job programmes and more targeted training is, in principle, a good idea, but the reality and delivery on the ground will be very different. In this regard, I am not convinced by a Minister who has failed to deal with rising queues in social welfare offices and the crisis in the community welfare system, and who has failed thus far to help young people who are unemployed. I do not understand how this measure will address what she intends to address or says she intends to address in this legislation.

The Minister has to some extent included in the Bill many of the proposals made by the Opposition over recent months but not in a way that achieves the outcomes we hoped for or intended to achieve. This applies to the back to work enterprise allowance, the back to education allowance and the supplementary welfare payment or rent supplement. In February, I proposed that the Minister examine rent supplement payments and conduct a review thereof in the belief that potential savings of up to €55 million could accrue this year if payments were in line with market rates. I gave examples in February of the differences in rent reductions available across the country and used figures available from daft.ie.

The rent supplement scheme has become a critical scheme providing supposedly short-term income support to people in private rented accommodation who otherwise would have nowhere to live. I suggested that the Minister set about lowering the ceiling for rent supplement to reflect current market rates and that, given the number of vacant properties, her staff should negotiate with the owners to reduce the financial burden on the State and increase the standard and quality available to claimants. What did the Minister choose to do instead? She made a blanket announcement affecting the whole country equally, changing not only the rate being paid to the landlord but also the rate the tenant must pay. Although rent fell by 13% in Dublin and 5.8% in Galway, people from both areas will be subject to the exact same cut.

The Minister needs to conduct a full review of the scheme, not just a cost-saving review. It should take account of the needs of those involved. There are parts of Dublin's city centre, for example, where rents have not been subject to any noticeable decrease. There are particularly vulnerable groups, such as people in bed-sits, paying as much as €169 per week with a rent supplement cap of €130 per week, thus forcing them to pay top-ups to their landlords. The Private Residential Tenancies Board is aware that such top-ups are being paid. Threshold, which has done much work in this area, demonstrates that this is still very much a live issue. It has not been tackled. In theory, these tops-ups are illegal but there are no real checks to determine whether they are being paid. In some cases, vulnerable tenants are forced to make these payments. There is still no adequate checking of the quality of the accommodation.

The Minister for Social and Family Affairs, together with the Minister of State responsible for housing, who was reappointed today, such that he will have plenty of experience, needs to examine the vacant properties and consider the possibility of including them in the rental accommodation scheme with a view to including more people. The Minister announced today there will be 1,000 more places available under the scheme. This will just about bring us half way towards meeting the commitment made on where we should stand at present. Announcing 1,000 more places is no great cause for celebration as we are nowhere near where we should be. The opportunities under the rental accommodation scheme by comparison with those under the rent supplement scheme, in terms of getting rid of poverty traps and allowing people to work, are far more beneficial. This is on what we should be concentrating. The scheme should be working much better. Removing the traps and increasing the opportunities to work would be much more cost effective for the State and far more beneficial to the tenant.

The Government needs to get tougher on landlords. I could not believe that the Minister, in her speech, asked us to help send out a message to landlords. That is the job of the Minister responsible.

See this speech in context