I welcome Mr. Seamus Thompson, chief executive officer of the Irish Wheelchair Association, and Mr. Hugh Farrell, its regional manager for the midland region. They have heard about the privileges of members, which are unfortunately not accorded to them as visitors. There is no need to read out what I read out earlier. Perhaps Mr. Thompson might begin.
FÁS Community Employment Schemes: Presentation.
Mr. Seamus Thompson
We listened with great interest to the previous speakers, since some of the issues that we have are common. However, I will make an effort to simplify this presentation in order that it concentrates on our specific issues. Community employment has been tossed around for several years, and, while I agree that it has done wonderful work for the country, its operation is now causing serious difficulties. We have lobbied various parties and Deputies in recent years on CE and the issues that we experience. I must put my hand on my heart and say that we have not got our message across, since it has been mixed up in the overall CE debate, which is very different.
I will run through a very brief document detailing our issues, after which Mr. Farrell will deal with them in more detail. CE has been used for over 12 years as a stop-gap measure to shore up substantial gaps in the health services, mainly for people with disabilities. The Government has not only tolerated but positively encouraged the situation, with the result that it has now become a deeply embedded, integral part of service provision. It is a very effective and successful training mechanism for the unemployed. However, it is no longer suitable for the provision of ongoing basic health and personal social services to people with disabilities. It is time to end that dependence and fully incorporate such activities into the health service, where they rightly belong. Through no fault of its own, CE has promoted a two-tier health service for people with disabilities. Some with disabilities receive services from staff funded by the health board, while others are dependent on services provided through CE, with all the pitfalls that accompany it. Such inequality must end.
Three years ago the Government proposed to mainstream all education and health-related support services provided through CE. The Health Boards Executive, or HeBE, in co-operation with the organisations providing services, submitted a report in preparation for the transfer of posts from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment to the Department of Health and Children. The report identified 3,600 participants providing health-related services through CE at a cost to the Exchequer of €42.9 million. That budget was in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. The report estimated that mainstreaming the services, something that has since become a dirty word, would cost an additional €42.6 million.
The IWA rejects that additional figure as totally out of date. Some 10% of CE participants are in the health sector. The cost to the Exchequer of transferring the core provisions is nil. If the Government transfers the full cost of each CE participant from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment to the Department of Health and Children, the exercise can be completed very quickly with no financial impact on the Exchequer. In a review of the programme in August 2004, the Government repeated its commitment to provide the necessary support services to enable people with disabilities to achieve their potential, saying that the ongoing development of those services would remain one of its priorities. We call on the Government to start the process of transferring the CE places to core funded positions attached to the Department of Health and Children over a maximum two-year period.
I was attracted by Deputy Howlin's comment about local authorities, since I have always firmly believed that many of the services in which we are involved, while linked to the Department of Health and Children, are more appropriate to the local authorities. They have worked very well in the British system, which has been a great experience, but that is a marginal issue at this stage. I do not want to give the impression that CE has not been good. It has done a wonderful job, and we have provided over 60 day centres throughout the country on CE alone. If it had not been there in the early 1990s, that would not have happened. They are now thankfully up and running, and people are getting out of their homes and driving people to very successful centres, large and small. The supervisors mentioned are, in our situation, very often the day centre managers. CE participants are those running the services.
We have benefited greatly from it, as has the health service, but because of the dwindling labour market over the last three or four years in particular, the quality of participants has not been acceptable. We are not able to find a willing workforce. Mr. Farrell can give more examples, but we find people coming forward who have no choice other than to do so, or they will lose their dole. Having said all that, there are superb employees in many rural areas, and the concept of CE and part-time work suits many women trying to get back into the workforce and others who would not take up full-time employment. CE has many attractive concepts, but we have found that, since the criteria were tightened, with a dwindling workforce, people are in constant training only to be lost after the first year, or a maximum of three years if they are over 35. We are training people for unemployment again and losing them to the service in which we are involved. Perhaps Mr. Farrell might provide some more detail.
Mr. Hugh Farrell
As outlined in the leaflet, as a national organisation, IWA provides a significant range of over 15 different types of services. The main issue today is the services provided in what we call our resource and outreach centres, which are probably better known in most people's minds as day centres. People come in for various types of social activation, education and personal care. Essentially it is for whatever the member needs. We operate on the basis of person-centre planning. We have been engaged in several pilot projects with the National Disability Authority. One of our major issues is the continual turnover of staff and the time lost training people who are there for perhaps six months or a year, up to a maximum of three years. All that is lost when the person leaves, often reverting to unemployment, and in many cases the dole, at a net saving to the State of perhaps €15 per week.
The eligibility criteria have become very tight over the last few years with the implementation of the cap. One of the major planks for IWA is that we do not seek its lifting to resolve the issue. Our biggest problem is the provision of a quality service to members. We are really providing health and social services. It is done in a completely different manner in the learning disability services, where staff are employed and paid on health board rates and not regarded as community employment personnel. The type of work that our CE staff perform in the centres includes intimate personal care, which can be as basic as taking someone to the toilet. It is very intimate, and people build up a relationship with the people on the community employment programme. They get to know that they have a relationship, and when that is broken, they must start again and build another, which can be extremely difficult. Few of us understand what it means to a person with a disability to be in that situation.
As the CEO outlined, we have many people on community employment who do not want to be with us in the first place. In many cases, they feel that they are there only because they are being forced to participate to avoid endangering their social welfare payments. Much has been said recently about posts being ring-fenced in the health sector. In 2002, when the HeBE report was published, 417 posts were ring-fenced for the Irish Wheelchair Association. The number employed at this stage is 341, but it must be remembered that they are half-time posts of 19.5 hours per week. Since ring-fencing was implemented we have lost 76 staff throughout the country. Our fear is that the money may be lost to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment Vote and may not be available when, I hope, mainstreaming comes on board.
We carried out costings in association with FÁS of what the scheme will cost for the midlands region which is generally representative of the country as a whole. The number of participants in CE schemes in the midlands accounts for almost 10% of the total, whereas 6% of the national population live in the region. This suggests there is a higher dependence the schemes in the region than in the country as a whole.
The scheme has been approved for 43 participants. In the ten months it has been operating under the current regime we managed to employ 43 people for one week. If one recruits three or four, one may lose four or five. This results in a continuous breakdown in training and service provision and a lack of continuity. There is a failure to comply with the standards laid down by the National Disability Authority.
In 2003 the cost amounted to €501,000, which figure is broken down in the third document we submitted. It cost €501,000 to fill the 43 approved places in the midlands, which figure dropped to as low as 33 on occasions. If one takes a simple average of 37.5 posts at any given time, the actual cost to the Exchequer was €13,381 per place last year. FÁS is working on a ballpark figure of €15,000. The figure for 2004 is expected to be higher, taking the cost to an actual figure of €14,719. If one multiplies this figure for two CE scheme places, it amounts to the figure for one whole-time equivalent or a 39 hours per week post. That makes almost €30,000 available for mainstreaming. The scale applied to the posts is that of Department of Health and Children programme assistant which runs in 13 increments from €24,268 to €25,368. The IWA's contention is that the €5,000 difference between what it would cost to have a person on a CE scheme and in employment would more than fund the PRSI obligations, pension contributions and overhead costs that would be incurred. It is a conservative figure in that it excludes FÁS overheads in respect of pay costs, travel and subsistence costs or accommodation costs for staff and personnel.
To back up what the CEO said, I brought it down to local level and said, "This is what it is costing in the midlands," which reflects what is happening throughout the country. If the 417 posts were mainstreamed at a cost of €14,719 each, the cost would roll out at in excess of €5 million by way of a simple Vote transfer to the Department of Health and Children. If the posts were filled, it would add more than another €1 million. If the top-up of 25% indicated in the 2002 discussions was made available by the Department of Health and Children, it would increase the figure further. Taking the current figures in the system, there are more than 6,000 available at the approved level.
I referred to the lifting of the cap. Workers are often sent for up to five weeks on training programmes to carry out the work they must do. We are talking here about basic tasks. One cannot manually handle or move a client in a centre unless one has been properly trained to do so. There are other courses covering such issues as food hygiene, personal care, disability awareness and so on. If a person stays for one year on a CE scheme, having been trained for five weeks, and is then taken on for ten years, the five week training programmes meets his or her basic training requirements. All that remains to be done is the provision of top-up training and attendance at familiarisation courses. Some excellent individuals who come through FÁS and CE schemes do not want to become unemployed and are very upset when they have to leave. This means that members and staff are upset.
Of the 21,000 places available on CE schemes in 2002, 3,600 participants were involved in direct health and social care provision. The IWA had more than 417 of them. There is a high dependence on the community employment scheme within the organisation. However, many of our members feel they are being treated as second class citizens. If one has a learning disability, staff are provided within pure Department of Health and Children grades. A community employment scheme participant — basically a training scheme — is considered adequate to look after the people concerned.
Concern has been expressed as to whether there will be people available to fill the posts if they are mainstreamed. We would not suggest a "big bang" approach, more of a soft landing over the remaining three budgets of the Government. Approximately 50 people are availing of assisted living services, akin to the home help service and the personal assistant services operated by the health boards. We are contracted by healths boards to provide this service. Those who work with me in the midlands work an average of 9.75 hours per week which is not considered sustainable employment. If someone with whom they are dealing dies or goes into hospital, their job is on the line. Many of them live in remote rural areas where the option of travelling to work in larger centres is not available. There is also a wider pool available in that many of them are students and do this work part time. One must be 25 years of age to take part. If one is aged between 25 and 35 years, one will only qualify for one year. After three years, one is effectively out of the loop.
There is concern that this measure will bring a new type of employee into the public sector. While FÁS maintains correctly that the people concerned are participating in training schemes with us, they are employees of the Irish Wheelchair Association, like any other officer of the association. They are protected by the same employment legislation and so on. From my point of view, their contract of employment is exactly the same as mine.
How many people in Ireland use wheelchairs?
Mr. Thompson
The number is not known. It is said that approximately 10% of the population have a disability which could vary from a learning to a physical disability.
The association is doing outstanding work and most of my colleagues and I will be only too pleased to assist. The message we are hearing loud and clear is that it wants the responsibility transferred to the Department of Health and Children. It is a basic right. As a nation and Christians, we should try to support the people concerned.
I endorse what the Chairman said about the Irish Wheelchair Association, the work of which is highly appreciated in the community.
I would like to tease out the issue of mainstreaming. I do not regard it as a dirty word but to solve the problem in the education area it was not a simple equation to take a sum of money and hand it over from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment to a line Department. In my experience what happened was that the numbers employed diminished significantly. It will take some tweaking to get this right.
It is stated in the submission that the preferred option is mainstreaming. I do not want to go into detail on the costs involved because it is a technical issue which can be teased out later. On best provision, is there scope for social provision in respect of the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs involving those who might not be available for full-time employment? Women with family commitments and so on would be very good carers and well able to work with people with special needs. Is there scope for a community provision, similar to CE scheme services, but not a pretend training model, that would be long-term, formalised and funded by the State as community work rather than mainstreamed in the Department of Health and Children?
Sometimes professionals act as professionals as opposed to carers. I say this as a former Minister for Health and Children and not as a criticism. For example, in the area of child care, a support worker who does the household chores and teaches basic culinary skills to assist a family under pressure has more of an impact than a social worker. I am a little concerned, therefore, about the professionalisation of caring support staff. Is there room for community support that draws on people trained to a minimum standard but who are not mainstreamed as health workers?
I refer to ring-fenced posts. Although it was announced that the posts were ring-fenced, the problem was the individuals filling them were not. The criteria for employment were changed in order that the net result was people who met the new criteria were not available to fill the ring-fenced posts and the posts disappeared. If mainstreaming is introduced, a snapshot in time should not refer to the diminished number of posts but to the number required by the organisations involved.
My last question relates to quality of service. Mr. Thompson indicated that, because of improved labour market conditions, the community employment pool had reduced significantly. That is positive, as it means most people are in full-time employment. Is there sufficient quality in the pool to provide a decent service or is there a level of urgency attached to providing a different stream of people to support the Irish Wheelchair Association in its important work?
Mr. Thompson
I will leave the question about ring-fenced posts to Mr. Farrell. I will address the final question first. Enough people are available but the constant squeezing by FÁS or the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment has caused a problem. Thankfully, the workforce has dwindled and we are down to a low level of unemployment at 3% or 4%. Among this group, however, a number of excellent people are better suited to part-time work while others do not want to be in the workforce. They tell us they would be happier if we could release or sack them. We have experienced these horror stories.
We also run the personal assistant scheme in most health board areas. However, there are no specific criteria for the posts and all those involved are part-timers. They work between eight and ten hours a week for us and very often are available to work additional hours. This part-time operation suits us well. If mainstreaming was introduced tomorrow morning, we would not take on half the people on CE schemes full time because it would not suit us. Those who work half time, two thirds time or two or three days a week suit us well. A cohort of workers is, therefore, available. Apart from the part-time workers providing the assisted living service, there are not too many places people go for employment other than the CE scheme. If there was continuity in the scheme and people could be trained in order that they would have a future, they would be excellent because they are already doing the job.
I fundamentally agree with the Deputy on the professionalisation of the health service. As an organisation, we have benefited greatly from the mix of staff and volunteers. The CE scheme has brought that mix together, which is positive. It has provided a team of volunteers for the association. Even when people leave community schemes, a percentage will stay with the organisation as volunteers. I do not have a difficulty in travelling the same road as the Deputy but continuity is the issue, not insisting people take up employment against their will in order that quality workers can be employed. We do not mind which Department funds it but I would choose the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, provided the scheme was properly structured. Training should not be imposed for the sake of it. We are putting people through five or six weeks training per year but they do not want it and are completely turned off by it.
At the same time, we must do it and the difficulty for the organisation is we must stand over this training. We must be responsible and be able to say to our insurers they have been trained. We had to segregate our insurance in recent years. Allianz is our insurer and we had to take out a separate policy for FÁS workers because the claims made under it are sky high compared with other forms of insurance. We could pay the high rate for everybody but Allianz us quotes us a low rate for general staff. Based on our claims record it quotes us more than 3% for FÁS staff.
Mr. Farrell
I agree with the Deputy that while the posts were ring-fenced, those who filled them were not. That is why we are down 70 posts. The CEO has made it clear there is a pool available. They are involved in our assisted living service and constantly ask whether there is additional work for them to do. One of the greatest problems we have with participants commencing on CE schemes is their literary skills. We must organise literacy courses before many of them can do basic courses. This has been a sensitive issue and such courses can take much longer than the five or six weeks set aside for the other courses.
Are they organised by the VECs?
Mr. Farrell
We conduct them in partnership mainly with the adult literacy service of the VEC. I agree with Deputy Howlin because I have worked for a health board for more than 20 years. I joined the IWA two years ago and it operates totally within the social model. We try not to professionalise. That is probably an issue because we do not have enough professionals. Practically all our staff, with the exception of supervisors, are employed as care attendants such as hospital porters or domestic staff, at a cost of between €24,000 and €25,000 over 13 years. I do not agree there is a difficulty with over professionalisation because if somebody needs a medical intervention, that is outside our responsibility.
It may be necessary under the social model to provide services in the home but, following the personal planning process they go through, most of our members are anxious to socialise and not to be stuck at home. We have spent a great deal of time developing this. We have even been slower moving on it because of some of the issues relating to literacy.
Deputy Howlin also mentioned the stream of staff. We have a staff of 341. In the nine months between January and September, 197 came through the system. While some may have to undergo training, in the past two weeks one lady asked for her P45 because she preferred to go back on the dole. She did not want to work or have the hassle of doing courses. Such people are not motivated to work whereas those providing the assisted level service have made a choice to get involved, even for a few hours a week. They are snapping at the door to do it.
The CE scheme also creates another problem. We have CE scheme staff who earn €18 per hour whereas mainstream staff earn €12 per hour. CE scheme staff on the basic rate earn €9 per hour. What does this do for motivation? The high rate relates to people's dependence and so on. I reassure the committee on the social model because I have seen it working from the other side of the fence where over professionalisation has caused major issues.
I welcome Mr. Thompson and Mr. Farrell, with whom I am acquainted for many years through the health board, and compliment them on the work they have done. I understand the problem the Irish Wheelchair Association is facing, as illustrated to me by the delegation in Tuam, in which a very good centre is operating. If the association proceeds with half a complement of full-time staff, will it be able to operate? As I saw in Tuam, it is mostly part-time staff that it needs. What cost would be involved if it were to go for the same number of part-time posts again? It will not be able to provide its services with half the number of staff whereas it could do so very well if all the posts were offered on a part-time basis. It requires caring staff. It makes more sense that training be provided on-site to ensure it adheres to the association's requirements. I support the association and the wonderful work it undertakes.
I welcome the delegation from the Irish Wheelchair Association and compliment the association on its work. The delegation's presentation suggests we are caught up in a bundle of artificial bureaucracy and book-keeping while there is no consideration for wheelchair users. There is no humanity in this approach. Either the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, or the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, should attend a meeting of this committee to address the issue after the information presented today has been forwarded to the relevant Departments for consideration. The Minister in question should counteract the claims in the delegation's presentation. If he or she cannot do so, a proposed solution must be outlined to the committee.
Is it correct that one of the main problems facing the Irish Wheelchair Association is the uncertainty in the way in which it operates? It is performing a professional job without sufficient staff to deliver services. Is it a significant disadvantage of the current system that those participating in community employment schemes must leave after a fixed period of time? During their time participating in the schemes they receive training and become familiar with the operations of the association. They have every opportunity to familiarise themselves with the services provided by the association and become, in effect, professionals in their delivery. When the community employment scheme comes to an end, they have to leave. It must have been heartbreaking on occasion to witness the departure of individuals who were committed to the work of the association and had demonstrated their suitability during the years but the association's hands were tied by this bureaucracy and balancing of the books.
When a community employment scheme comes to an end, the Irish Wheelchair Association must recruit new persons, many of whom are inexperienced. It must effectively start from scratch, providing training and familiarising these new people with the services they must deliver. This must set its work back considerably and means there is no coherent approach to the delivery of services. I agree with the delegation's observation in its presentation that this is a serious equality issue. The relevant Ministers must be asked why one organisation should be treated in a different manner from other organisations delivering similar services to different categories of disadvantaged persons. If any Minister addresses this question seriously, many of the problems facing the Irish Wheelchair Association will be solved because there is no defence.
The objective is to reach a stage where the Irish Wheelchair Association can offer a professional service to its clients who are wheelchair users. This is not too much to ask. A consideration of the delegation's presentation indicates that the figures balance each other. Deputy Howlin who has more experience in this area than me suggests there may be problems. If there are, we should face them and find solutions. It is no use to have a Minister telling the committee that certain actions will be problematic. The committee must be told what are the problems and given the opportunity, in conjunction with the association, to provide solutions. I am sure we will be able to do so.
One can say we are speaking in tongues in that regard.
I welcome Mr. Thompson, chief executive, and Mr. Farrell, regional manager, and compliment them on their excellent work and leadership of the Irish Wheelchair Association. I have known both of them for a long time through their work in the Western Health Board. The combination of Mr. Farrell's work with the Irish Wheelchair Association and the great record of work he left with the health board will allow for expansion and development. I also thank the Chairman for allowing the association to appear before the committee on an individual rather than a group basis as it has facilitated a precise and detailed explanation of the difficulties faced by the association in its work with clients.
The respite and holiday centre developed by the Irish Wheelchair Association at Cuisle, Donamon, County Roscommon is a remarkable facility which members should visit if they are in the region. I have seen there the different degrees of disability of wheelchair users. While some are active and require little assistance, others are totally dependant on carers.
I support Deputy McHugh's suggestion that the committee should submit the delegation's detailed and well structured documentation to the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, and the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, who until recently was Minister at the former Department. The objective is to achieve the desired result, whether through the actions of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and employment or the Department of Health and Children.
Mainstreaming at the latter Department presents a difficulty because of the manner in which it is structured. The module which applies to the Brothers of Charity, for example, means money is sent in the form of grant-in-aid to the Irish Wheelchair Association which then arranges its structure to suits its modus operandi as opposed to a structure within the Department of Health and Children. The Brothers of Charity had a structure which was funded directly by the Department.
There is a certain flexibility in what the delegation is saying. This is the correct approach. I am confident its proposals will be successful because the Irish Wheelchair Association has a significant client base and is a national organisation with influence in every area. Its approach is practical, pragmatic and non-historical and it has put its case well. This should influence a decision in its favour. Like all committee members, I support its objectives. The delegation's submission is targeted and focused in its objectives which I believe are achievable.
There is a movement within the Irish Wheelchair Association which advocates total independent living and would prefer a direct payment from the Exchequer to allow wheelchair users employ their own carers. We have heard about the Departments involved in this issue, the complications of the community employment schemes and funding, and the various organisations dealing with wheelchair users. Direct payment would be a far simpler method which is being considered and used on a pilot basis in England where it is extremely successful. A person is assessed in terms of the extent of his or her disability. Depending on this assessment, he or she receives a direct payment, out of which he or she can pay for his or her own carers and employ them at times which suit him or her, not larger organisations. This is a simple way of approaching the matter. More and more wheelchair users would prefer this independence and flexibility. The amount of money which would need to be spent to get this service up to scratch is substantial. If it can be better used by giving it directly to the wheelchair user, this is the approach we should take as we would avoid many complications, duplication and red tape.
Mr. Thompson
I will answer Deputy Murphy's question first. We are advocates of direct payment. However, it would not suit everybody. That is one of the confusing issues about the disability movement and about our particular sector — physical and sensory disability. It is difficult to write one prescription to suit everybody. The issue of assisted living services, which include the personal assistant service, has become emotive during the years. It is one of the areas where a system of direct payment could operate well. We have run an intensive personal assistant service for the Eastern Regional Health Authority for a number of years and carried out constant surveys. We have found that less than one quarter of those receiving the service would want this system, whereby they would become the employer or broker or the person who would be funded. More active and independent people are candidates for such a system, and we view it as a right if people want it. However, in general, many of our clients want a simple service provided by somebody who knows what they are doing.
With regard to community employment, we are talking primarily about day services, about bus drivers going out in the morning to pick up people from their homes and getting them back safely to their families in the evening. Direct payments would not work in such situations because somebody has to run a day service and social activities. There will always be a mix. I hope future health services will have that mix. One will never be able to achieve this with one swipe of a pen and by saying it will suit everybody. It will not, because the complexity of disability is extremely difficult to handle.
I thank Deputy McHugh for his support. There is no doubt the turnover of people has caused serious issues. He mentioned a figure of 417 community employment scheme workers on our books. That is out of a total staff of 1,650 countrywide. The turnover of 192 this year to date out of the figure of 417 is frightening. These figures give a sense of the difficulties surrounding interviewing and human resources issues.
Two years ago we had issues, particularly in the west. We met the then Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, on a number of occasions and there was political intervention which alleviated matters somewhat. However, the bureaucracy did not change its attitude one bit. It found additional ways to tighten the screw. While politicians were telling us to slacken off, that the work we were doing was really good and that we needed people, there was no change on the ground. We lost the good people concerned. One novel aspect was that we met the then Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Harney, who was supportive of our work and always understood matters well. Unfortunately, she always said it was a health-related issue. Now the chickens are coming home to roost.
Mr. Farrell will answer Deputy Callanan's and Senator Leyden's questions.
Mr. Farrell
Most of the posts we have available are part time because it suits people in local areas such as part-time farmers. Two community employment scheme posts become what is called a whole-time equivalent within the Department of Health and Children, which post could be filled by one, two or three people. There is that flexibility which we need because of the range of services we provide from morning until late at night. It would not be a question of looking for 21 full-time posts in the midlands. It could be 50 part-time posts. However, the total number of hours is not crossed.
Would the cost be higher?
Mr. Farrell
No, the rate of pay would be the same. The level of PRSI could be less because of the various limits and ceilings involved. People would be paid an hourly rate.
A number of members asked why people spent so much time training. However, if a member has an accident and hurts his or her back, or if there is a food hygiene incident in the kitchen because a hazard analysis has not been in addition to critical control points training, we are in trouble. Our insurance company is extremely specific in this regard.
Another issue concerns the age profile of participants. Older people are coming back into the workforce and the work we do is not the easiest. It involves manually handling and moving people in difficult situations such as in the bathroom, on to buses, etc. While training can be a nuisance, it is absolutely necessary. However, once somebody completes the mandatory period of five weeks' training and stays in the organisation, the beauty is he or she might only need a period of top-up training during the years.
Does the training provided cover FÁS training? Do they need to be sent for other forms of training? Is the training provided on site?
Mr. Farrell
Most is on site, or can be provided at an outside facility if we do not have space. This also represents a cost to FÁS.
We launched our five year strategic plan and are happy to leave a copy. It was compiled following massive consultation with members. Returning to Deputy McHugh's point, it represents the members' views. Every member had an opportunity to feed into the document. All of our members are looking for choice. Some want a personal assistant, but, as our CEO said, very few want the hassle of dealing with employment legislation.
When the figures are closely analysed, the cost to the State would probably be nil in the examples I have given. We will be happy to elaborate on the figures which have been prepared in a simple format. They are not being rolled out in such a way as to make them overly complicated.
Returning to Deputy McHugh's point, a community employment scheme only runs for one year. One applies six months in advance and there is no guarantee it will roll forward. Even if it does, people will fall off. For example, five people will leave the midlands scheme when it rolls over in December. Another 19 will leave between December and the end of August 2005. Practically two thirds of those currently filling posts will leave over the next 12 months. I have seen tears in the eyes of people for whom we provide services, and also in the eyes of staff.
There seems to be confusion. The Irish Wheelchair Association does not only provide services for people in wheelchairs. We provide services for people with limited mobility. This can range from those with limited impairment to those who require round the clock care.
Is it possible for a direct payment to be granted in lieu from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment or the Department of Health and Children, as opposed to mainstreaming?
Mr. Thompson
That is already happening for the other services. Only community employment is treated in this way. We do not have direct payments from the Department. That no longer exists for most agencies now and these payments are through the health boards. We are waiting to see what will happen there. Clearly health board funding funds other services. We provide a range of other services, from driving to sports activities. That block funding is there and is agreed on the basis of a service plan proposed each year. Unfortunately, community employment is part of that but is funded separately in a different way.
Mainstreaming it would solve the problem.
Mr. Thompson
The word "mainstream" has certain connotations in people's minds and that is one of the difficulties. There is so much mystique around CE and its implications. For whatever reason it has wound up in recent years that there are serious budgetary implications. Using FÁS budgeted figures we have established it costs FÁS or the Department €15,000 per half-time employee in FÁS. I am not saying that is what they are paying the individuals. As a whole-time equivalent this would cost €30,000. We are saying we can employ people for €25,000 plus the PRSI, which is still well below €30,000. From an Exchequer point of view, there is probably a saving and certainly there is no additional cost. I know FÁS will argue it has overheads, which it has to bear anyway, but that is an internal matter. It does not matter to us whether it goes to the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs or to the Department of Health and Children. We simply want continuity and to protect people's dignity. With the kind of nonsense that is going on, we feel that bureaucracy has gone mad. We would have no difficulty in stating that the CE scheme was one of the greatest schemes ever going back to the late 1980s when things were bad.
: Absolutely.
Mr. Thompson
While it has grown in stature it has outgrown itself. I am not saying it should not continue in the future; there is a place there for it. However, it is not suitable for the kinds of services we are providing. I believe it is time to call it a day.
I take it the Irish Wheelchair Association's message is that it wants the scheme transferred into the Department of Health and Children.
Mr. Thompson
That is what we would wish if that were the simpler option. We want to send the message that there is no cost to the Exchequer and that people need to consider apples against apples and not apples against oranges. The report some two to three years ago considered community employment as it is now versus what it would be if core funding were based on premium rates or overnight rates. This is very unfair, as this is not being done at the moment. This was how additional costs were introduced at the time. They were considering apples and oranges. Our message is we should keep it simple and compare like with like. Last night we met the Fianna Fáil sub-committee on health. They just do not understand. Despite all our lobbying we have not done a good job in getting our message across. From now on we will be more forceful in showing there is no difference. We are talking about our own people. We are not talking about the 3,600 people in the Department of Health and Children; we are talking about the 417 people in the Irish Wheelchair Association.
The first vote has started in the Seanad and the Dáil will follow suit. I thank Mr. Thompson and Mr. Farrell for attending this meeting and briefing us on this very pressing problem their organisation has presented to the committee. I am sure they will have a very interesting meeting with the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children. They are pushing at an open door with her because I know she is very supportive of the Irish Wheelchair Association as we all are. This committee will do anything it can for the remainder of the life of the Dáil to be the conduit to Government. I know that Fianna Fáil of which I am a member is making a major issue of CE schemes. We have already had three meetings in two weeks. We are not going away, particularly those of us who are backbenchers. For Deputies McHugh and Murphy and all the Senators who spoke this morning it is enormously important that this be addressed and people on training should be given the confidence they will not be left there for 12 months. Despite all the good done up to now, it has gone completely out of control. It is time for us to shout, "stop".
Mr. Thompson
I thank the Chairman for the courtesy we received in the House. This is our first experience of attending such a committee meeting. I thank all the Deputies and Senators who spoke. One of the great things I have noticed in my time in the organisation is that we seem to have that kind of support from all parties on the ground. It is up to us to get our message across more clearly. I thank the Chairman and secretariat for making us welcome.
I did not know it was the witnesses' first time appearing before a committee. We must congratulate them on the Special Olympics World Games, which gave our country an image world-wide way beyond what we could have imagined when it was first mooted. As one associated with sending athletes from my area of Castlepollard in north County Westmeath to America and who helped fund such athletes I just cannot measure the good done for these unfortunate people who are bound to wheelchairs.
The joint committee went into private session at 11.45 a.m. and adjourned at 11.50 a.m. sine die.