Vol. 563 No. 4
105 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if she will review the decision to cut the financial allocation to FÁS in order to maintain the number of community employment places at 2002 levels in view of the importance of this scheme to the voluntary, community and sporting sectors; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [8353/03]
In accordance with the Government's decision in 1999 to restructure community employment, participation levels are gradually being reduced, reflecting the significant reduction in the numbers of long-term unemployed and the shift in emphasis away from work experience programmes to training, from which there is a greater level of progression to employment. The average participation rate on the programme during 2003 is expected to be in the region of 22,000. There were 24,991 participants in CE at the end of 2002 and this number will reduce to a projected participation rate of 20,000 by the end of 2003.
FÁS prioritises CE projects according to the types of services provided and levels of unemployment in the locality and co-ordinates reductions in CE places to minimise any negative effects on groups and services most in need of the programme. Activities of the Drugs Task Force and child care service provision are ring-fenced against any reductions and projects in RAPID areas are given priority. Community employment places in the health sector, which includes the personal assistant service, are being maintained at existing levels to ensure continuity of the delivery of these services.
The Government is very much aware of the important contribution community employment has made to the development of services for local communities over the years and the difficulties which now arise for sponsor organisations in the voluntary and community sector due to the reduction in the level of funding available for the programme. In this context, a cross-departmental group of senior officials has been asked to consider options for the future of community employment, taking account of the link with the provision of community services. In addition, the PPF-mandated review of active labour market programmes is being advanced under the aegis of the standing committee on the labour market, chaired by my Department. FÁS is also currently undertaking an internal review of community employment and the job initiative programme, which should be finalised shortly. The outcome of these initiatives will inform the Government's consideration of options for the future delivery of community services and appropriate levels of CE for the future.
Does the Minister of State agree that CE is good value for money? It secures useful work at little premium over the unemployment rate which would be dead money. Does he agree that a scheme that is giving good value should not be cut back by 12,000 as the Minister has done in the past two years? Does he agree that at a time when unemployment has grown by 32,000 in the past two years, to cut back CE by 12,000 is making the options for unemployed people worse? Will the Minister of State consider changing policy on this issue and restoring CE as it is a good value, worthwhile scheme that has a positive impact on unemployment?
CE was introduced as a labour market tool to deal with long-term unemployment. It also gave people the opportunity of training in employment in order to progress into full-time employment. As a result of that development, almost on an ad hoc basis, a significant range of community services were carried out under CE and those services provide good value for money for the communities involved. Some community employment schemes provide much better value for money than others.
In view of the reduction in the levels of the long-term unemployed, it is appropriate to review CE and reduce the numbers. We no longer have so many people unemployed and have granted 40,000 work permits. A review is being undertaken. The Minister and I are anxious to put on a firm structured footing the community service provision which has become part of CE and which happened almost on an ad hoc basis. That is central to the review we are carrying out. We are confident that with 20,000 people we can provide significant community services. We are also confident we can make CE more effective and better value for money than it has been in the past. All of that is under review, which should carry out a critical analytical examination of the whole programme.
Would the Minister of State not agree that the promise of a review at a time when the Government is tearing the fabric of community support apart in many of our communities is cold comfort? Would he not agree that 1,000 flowers have bloomed all over the country as a result of this scheme? However, the Minister of State is telling us this developed on an ad hoc basis as if this was something bad; this was something good. This is a worthwhile scheme which gave real opportunities to people and resulted in 40% placement in employment. It is needed at a time when unemployment is rising to 169,000, according to the live register, an increase of 32,000. In anyone's language now is a time when we need schemes like this.
We will have an enhanced community employment scheme as a result of the changes being made.
We do not.
Nobody argues that the long-term unemployment problem that existed a number of years ago when CE was introduced is there now. It is not sustainable to argue there should be the same number of people at a time when 40,000 non-European—
The incremental cost of it over social welfare is tiny.
Some 40,000 non-European people will come to this country seeking employment this year.
What has that got to do with it?
We must reduce the numbers of people on CE.
Why?
Under the changed structures we are giving better training to people who are on CE to give them a better chance to progress into sustainable employment.
That is bad economics.
