Phil Hogan
Question:12 Mr. Hogan asked the Minister for Labour whether the European Social Fund will continue to approve funding for social employment schemes in Ireland; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - European Social Fund.
Michael Bell
Question:26 Mr. Bell asked the Minister for Labour if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the social employment scheme is no longer eligible for support from the European Social Fund; if it is intended to (a) recommend at ECOFIN changes in the application of the ESF or (b) have a training component attached to the SES so as to enable it to continue to qualify for ESF funding and support; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 12 and 26 together.
When the present rules governing the European Social Fund, ESF, were adopted by the Council of Ministers in 1988 the Irish Government succeeded, against considerable opposition, in having social employment scheme, SES, type employment projects accepted for ESF funding for a period of three years finishing in 1991. When the proposed new rules, which will operate from 1 January 1994, come before the Council for discussion later this year I shall seek to have SES-type schemes readmitted for eligibility. I have already made contact with the European Commission in the matter and I intend to actively pursue it with them during the course of discussions on the post-1993 Structural Funds.
The Community Employment Development Programme, CEDP, which is replacing the SES in the 12 partnership areas established under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, will incorporate a training element. EC funding by way of a global grant has been made available to assist these companies. I will seek to capitalise on the availability of the global grant in the discussions on the restoration of ESF aid for the SES generally.
Does the Minister accept the apparent view of the European Commission that we should be building a greater training element into all our social employment schemes? In resubmitting our case under the 1994 scheme to which he refers, would he arrange to upgrade the quality of experience enjoyed by people entering social employment schemes, so that not only will those schemes quality for ESF funding but also be more rewarding for those participating?
Social employment schemes are achieving excellent results and the demand to participate in those schemes well exceeds the resources available, despite the fact that this year the Government are spending more than £72 million of Exchequer money on the social employment scheme. I agree that there is a need to incorporate a training element into the schemes, where applicable. The criteria presently laid down within the ESF regulations that decide which schemes are to be ESF-aided and which are not to be so assisted are strictly economic and do not include the social dimension that is required in order to give more people who are out of work the opportunity of involvement in a scheme, whether it be a work experience programme or a training scheme or some other kind of initiative. A social dimension is required if we are to obtain the kind of funding needed to deal with long term unemployment, which is becoming an increasing problem throughout the Community.
I would be the first person to say that the social employment scheme is not the real way to deal with unemployment. However, there is a particular need and demand for the scheme at a time when there are nearly 300,000 unemployed and when many people wish to take up work on projects. Would the Minister not agree that, by placing an embargo on various schemes throughout the country, he and his Department are causing the projects of many community organisations which depend on the social employment scheme for employment in sports centres, community centres, citizen day centres and so on, to fall by the wayside? Would the Minister give a commitment that the necessary finance will be made available to enable those people who wish to avail of the social employment scheme to do so, pending the provision of proper jobs by the Government?
This year more than 11,000 people will participate in the social employment scheme. That figure is in line with the participation level of recent years. Demand for places on the scheme does outstrip the supply; that has always been the case. The Government are spending £72 million of Exchequer money on the scheme. When ESF grant aid of more than £12 million was lost the Government made that amount available from Exchequer funding. The Government have, therefore, continued with the same level of commitment to this scheme despite losing the ESF grant that was formerly part of the scheme's funding. As a result of the meeting of the Central Review Committee and as a result of requests from trade unions and others, the number able to participate in this scheme will be increased between now and the end of the year.
It is true that some projects depend upon the social employment scheme. I make the point that the scheme exists to provide temporary employment. I receive inordinate requests from Deputies on all sides of the House that someone already on a scheme be retained, when in fact we should aim to get more people participating in the schemes. I use discretion and common sense, and when there are exceptional circumstances I try to comply with the requests made. My record since I have taken over this portfolio would show that I have done that even-handedly.
Perhaps it was somewhat misleading to say that the social employment scheme is costing the Government £72 million when some £50 million would have been expended in social welfare payments to the participants had those schemes not been established. In view of the Minister's comments about the continuation of the social employment scheme, I ask the Minister whether he thinks those comments are compatible with a report which stated just last week that he intends to replace the social employment scheme with a new scheme. Will the social employment scheme as we know it today continue? Could the Minister help to erase uncertainty about the Teamwork scheme and state whether or not funding will be available for that scheme in the coming year?
The comments I have made in relation to improvements in the social employment scheme, the thrust of the original question asked by Deputy Bruton, are made in the context of post-1994 ESF funding, on the basis that the criteria cannot be changed next year. This year I have increased funding to the Teamwork scheme, as a result of requests received from Deputies from all sides of the House. While I cannot pre-empt the outturn in my Estimate, I am certainly seeking to make financial provision for the continuation of the Teamwork scheme next year.
Should we take it from the Minister's reply that the review body will examine the performance and the need for the social employment scheme and will recommend an increase in the number to be taken on in social employment scheme projects for the remainder of the year? Would those recommendations apply, for example, to community groups that have sought permission for two workers but have received permission for only one worker? Is it correct that there is a problem with local authority social employment schemes in that there is some conflict with certain trade unions and that many schemes are held up on that account?
There is an anomaly in relation to the application of the scheme in certain local authorities as compared to others. I have pointed out that anomaly to the trade unions concerned and have asked that the issue be resolved as quickly as possible on the basis that it is unfair to local authorities that do not presently have participation in the scheme because of objections from certain quarters. I should like that anomaly to be redressed. Under the present circumstances, the arguments that have been used to stop the implementation of the social employment scheme in certain local authority areas are no longer valid.
In reply to the Deputy's query regarding groups that have sought permission for the participation of more workers under the scheme than have been permitted, I advise that it is now open to those groups to contact their local FÁS office to find out whether an increase in numbers will be permitted.
Would the Minister agree that if we were more honest about the use of European social funding, used the funds in a more upfront way and recognised that there are many areas, including work with youth, community involvement, local authority work and environmental schemes, in which the funds could be used, he would not have to deal with the representations he is getting for a continuation of individuals on particular schemes? People are getting involved in semi-permanent jobs and then are being let go. They face the traumatic experience of having to go back to join the dole queue. In fact, the work undertaken by those people was not part of a training scheme at all. I ask the Minister to pursue with the Community the possibility of using ESF aid in a more social and flexible way, rather than having to pretend involvement in training.
The social employment scheme is, in essence, a work experience programme and, therefore, does not have a training element per se and does not attract ESF aid. Consequently the question of increased flexibility in the use of European social funding in the scheme does not arise at the moment. If we were able to attract increased ESF aid for the social employment scheme by changing the criteria and by improving the training element in the scheme we would obviously be able to have more people on the scheme. I take the point that perhaps there is a need for a more focused approach in relation to the kind of projects that should get priority in the social employment scheme. I have spoken to FÁS in that regard. I am mindful of the excellent work being done under the scheme, particularly in the voluntary sector. I point out that in relation to the modified job training scheme I have issued an instruction to FÁS that those voluntary organisations that wish to get people on the job training scheme — which, in terms of allowances payable, is 75 per cent EC funded — should know that FÁS will make up the 25 per cent deficit. Many voluntary organisations simply do not have the capital resources needed to meet the 25 per cent minimum requirement.
I am trying in every way possible to accommodate people in the voluntary sector who are doing excellent work and have positive things to do in the community to improve the take up of the scheme. Obviously the 25 per cent contribution will remain in the private and commercial State sector. The voluntary sector have a problem in terms of providing the funding to take up the members. I am ensuring that that will not be an impediment in the future.
Question No. 13, please.