JOINT COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL PROTECTION debate -
Wednesday, 24 Nov 2010

Welfare Payments for Community Employment Participants: Discussion with SIPTU

Chairman

Members will recall a request from the SIPTU group for a meeting to discuss their concerns with us about the possible cessation of benefits for participants in the community employment schemes. I am delighted to welcome here today Mr. Darragh O'Connor, Ms Frances Byrne, Ms Sarah Gill and Ms Hilary Kingston, SIPTU. The format for the meeting will be a brief presentation by the group followed by a question and answer session.

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in regard to a particular matter and continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I ask Mr. O'Connor to commence his presentation.

Mr. Darragh O’Connor

I thank the members of the committee for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important issue. I am accompanied by Ms Frances Byrne from OPEN and Ms Sarah Gill and Ms Hilary Kingston, who are community employment, CE, workers working in the community. We had a meeting on Wednesday with the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, on this issue and we were delighted to hear his statement that he was not considering removing the additional welfare payments for lone parents and people with disabilities who are on community employment schemes. We thank the members of this committee who have made representations on behalf of those workers.

The "Your Right Your Fight" community employment, CE, campaign aims to protect welfare entitlements for community employment workers. The campaign is a joint SIPTU, OPEN, INOU and Mental Health Ireland campaign which is supported by Inclusion Ireland. More than 10,000 CE workers are members of SIPTU and are organising and campaigning with the union to defend their rights and entitlements on behalf of CE workers and their families. The "Your Right Your Fight" campaign is being co-ordinated and supported by CE workers nationally to ensure the retention of one-parent family payments and disability allowance so lone parents and people with disabilities can continue to access training and employment through CE.

CE is a vital means of addressing long-term unemployment by providing accessible and appropriate opportunities for employment and training. Even during the Celtic tiger economy significant numbers of people found it hard to access employment. Active labour market programmes such as community employment have played an important role in creating access points for long-term unemployed people, lone parents and disabled people. At a time of unprecedented unemployment, schemes like community employment are even more vital. Community employment provides badly need jobs and resources that underpin the delivery of services in local communities. CE is the backbone of the community sector providing one third of total employment there. Child care projects, youth projects, disability projects, meals on wheels, elder care projects and so forth are dependent on CE workers to deliver vital local services.

The removal of the one-parent family, OPF, payment and disability allowance for community employment workers would have a devastating impact on the workers and on the community sector infrastructure as a whole, causing much of it to simply collapse. More than 10,000 CE workers, 50% of the total, are in receipt of OPF or disability payments. The proposed cuts will act as a financial disincentive and major obstacle to lone parents and the disabled entering a CE scheme. The removal of welfare entitlements will have a major impact on staffing levels and the sustainability of community projects. CE provides 25% of community child care workers, many of whom are lone parents.

In some community settings a CE worker does the same or a similar job as a directly employed worker. If this proposal goes ahead then only the lone parent or disabled directly employed worker would be entitled to receive both his or her wages and a portion of his/her OPF or disability payment, thus potentially creating a two-tier workforce in community projects. This is not desirable and would create problems for those projects.

The call to end what the McCarthy report termed "dual payments" to community employment would hit lone parents and disabled people particularly hard. Many of them have additional labour market participation costs. The McCarthy report rationalised its call to cut social welfare payments for two reasons, deflation and falling wages. However, deflation does not affect all income groups equally and not everyone has the means to shop around. Research by the Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice on minimum essential budgets highlights the challenges facing social welfare and low income households in particular if they cannot access the major multiples. It should also be noted that the latest consumer price index from the Central Statistics Office, CSO, indicates the return of inflation. On the issue of falling wages, data from the CSO does not back up the argument of falling private sector wages. Its latest report notes that weekly "earnings in the public sector fell by 4.4% compared with a fall of 0.7% in the private sector". A reduction in working hours as distinct from a pay reduction appears to be a bigger factor.

In Budget 2010 participants on community employment were hit twice. As the CE payment is linked to social welfare payments for people of working age they lost 4.1%. They also lost a proportion of the training allowance they receive, so the differential between the basic social welfare rate and the CE payment reduced from €24.40 to €20. This loss of income was further compounded with changes to rent supplement supports and increased medical and dental charges. Many participants and social welfare recipients are fearful that further cuts will make life unbearable.

I will ask Ms Frances Byrne and Ms Sarah Gill to outline the next sections of the presentation.

Ms Frances Byrne

OPEN welcomes the opportunity to appear before the committee today and the statement by the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, last week. There is a great deal of worry among lone parents who are on community employment schemes.

According to the 2006 census there are 190,000 one-parent families in Ireland. This represents about a quarter of the total number of families in Ireland. A total of 86% of people parenting alone are mothers; 14% are fathers. More than 310,000 children, or 21% of all children in Ireland, live in one-parent families. Census 2006 found that almost 20,000 lone parents, about one in ten, live in multi-family households, for example, with their own parents or other relatives. A total of 94% of these are lone mothers.

The most recent figures on poverty and social exclusion show the following about one-parent families in Ireland: nearly one in five people in lone parent households was in consistent poverty in 2008, according to the latest figures available - the highest rate recorded among household types; lone parent households continued to be the household type with the highest "at risk of poverty" rate, with a rate of 36.4% being recorded for individuals in those households; lone parent households reported the highest deprivation levels of any household type with nearly one quarter or 24.2% of individuals in these households experiencing three or more of the 11 deprivation items in 2008. Those deprivation items include not being able to have a hot meal every day, living in debt to pay bills and not being able to afford heating in one's home. These are stark deprivation items.

Community employment provides approximately 5,000 lone parents with the means to keep their families just above the poverty line. Any cut to their income would drive 5,000 of such families into a level of deprivation which would impact hugely on them and should be unacceptable in any decent society. Any savings identified by the Department would be off-set in the medium to long term by the continued dependence of these families on income supports, health service and other publicly provided resources. In short, there is no economic or social imperative to apply cuts to Ireland's poorest families.

My colleague Sarah Gill, who is on a community employment scheme in OPEN, will speak on behalf of CE workers who are parenting alone.

Ms Sarah Gill

I am here to speak on my behalf and on behalf of other lone parents who are part of our campaign. Olive, who is a lone parent and CE worker, explains how she has benefitted from CE: "It makes such a difference. I mean financially the extra money is of benefit but it is great mentally to interact with people. I have something to do and obviously if l am happier, my son is too." When asked about what she would do if her social welfare was cut completely Olive stated: "Well I don't mind if they take a bit, like the bit they take is €40 or €50 but if they took it all, it would be hard to come in to work. At the moment they are looking at my rent contribution and that is likely to go up because CE is counted as income and then there are the added costs of coming to work".

Joyce who is, like me, a lone parent and CE worker, also explains how she has benefited from CE: "I was so happy when I qualified for my CE scheme as it integrated me back into the community, not only in my own community, but where I do my scheme as I walked to and from work and I got to know people in that community. I fear the cuts will mean I lose my scheme." She continues: "I cannot express the difference it makes to me and my little girl for me to be out working, with the cushion of my reduced social welfare payment. If it was cut, I would have to reconsider my options. I might have to give up a job I love, which is also contributing to the wider community of one-parent families at OPEN". I thank the joint committee for listening to my remarks.

Ms Hilary Kingston

If the Government reduces or discontinues community employment schemes, it will increase Exchequer costs by adding this gainfully employed group to the list of the unemployed. Other important factors include the loss of self-esteem to this vulnerable group and the increased risk of relapses of illness due to the stress and vulnerability associated with mental health problems. Modern psychiatry places huge emphasis on the recovery model of care. This retrograde step will halt the recovery of people in this vulnerable group. It will set them back in terms of well-being, which will have a huge impact on those who are concerned about them, including their carers, families and friends.

Regardless of whether it is expected, the loss of a job leads to stressful changes for individuals, families and significant others. There is a sense of financial, emotional and social loss. One has less money, obviously. One might experience grief, anger and a lack of self-worth. There is a loss of one's personal work relationships. The feelings and stresses that are experienced can be similar to the grieving process after the loss of a loved one. The loss of one's job forces an unwanted change in one's daily routine, changes the way one thinks about oneself and creates an emotional roller-coaster from optimism to pessimism. Other common emotional responses include anger, denial, depression, numbness, loss, disorganisation, despair, anxiety, worry and frustration. There is a loss of self-esteem and identity.

How we feel about ourselves is a core element of our mental health. It has a direct bearing on how we relate to others and to the community of which we strive to be part. As a community employment worker who receives disability benefit, I cannot begin to explain exactly how beneficial the community employment scheme has been for me. I can finally consider full-time employment. During the last three years, I have had the opportunity to study successfully. Given that the scheme is designed to help people get back to work, my experience is a good example of its success. It was the most positive career move I made in many years.

Mr. Darragh O’Connor

Lone parents and people with disabilities face substantial challenges in accessing employment and training. We ask the Government to recognise that the removal of the welfare entitlements of community employment workers will only serve to disadvantage them further.

Chairman

I thank the delegation.

Deputy Michael Ring

I welcome the witnesses and compliment every one of them on their excellent presentations. I support the community employment and rural social schemes. The latter scheme operates in rural Ireland. Both schemes have worked very well. I have said inside and outside the Dáil that if these schemes did not exist, we would have many more problems in cities and in rural areas. These schemes have worked well. It would be short-sighted of the Government to make any changes to them. I do not mind what Mr. McCarthy said because he was given a certain role as part of his specific job. As I have said previously, it is easy for him to make recommendations with regard to the less well-off in society. It is fine for him to be in a position to do so.

I would like to mention something I have noticed in recent months as I have been dealing with the social protection brief. Traditionally, people on disability allowance were allowed to go onto community employment schemes while retaining their payments. Many cutbacks have been made in this regard over the last year, however. I do not like it. Perhaps our guests can comment on that. Have they been contacted by many people who have been affected by the change I have noticed? Nobody will ever know what that does to people's self-esteem. If people are well off and have full-time jobs, they are fine. Community employment schemes offer a lifeline to others. They give good service to the community and improve people's self-esteem. I am aware of people who did not work for many years before they participated in community employment schemes. As Ms Kingston said, many of them went on to further education and employment. They are an asset to the State and to the country.

The proposed changes would represent a short-sighted approach on the part of the Government. I am aware that the delegates have met the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív. I hope he will honour the assurances he gave on that occasion. It is important that people hold what they have, particularly in respect of community employment schemes. Such schemes are good for the Government, for the country and for those who participate in them. I would like to offer my full support to the delegation. I hope the Government will not accept the recommendation in the McCarthy report because it does not make sense. The payments made to people on community employment schemes do not take them out of the margins - they are still in a poverty trap. I support this campaign. If the Government does not do likewise, it will be a short-sighted decision. We must not attack the most vulnerable. We must look after those who are trying to do something for themselves. The community employment and rural social schemes have been great because they have worked. As the old saying goes, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". As this is working, it should be left alone.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

I welcome the members of the delegation and thank them for their presentation. I congratulate them on the effective campaign they have been running over recent months, the aim of which is to meet Deputies in their constituencies. By meeting at first hand those who are involved in community employment programmes, those involved in the campaign have been able to see the practical work that is being done at local level throughout the country. They have emphasised to Deputies the importance of community-level work in keeping community services together. There are two aspects to this issue. It is clear that community employment schemes benefit those who participate in them, but they also make a sizable contribution to community services. That contribution is most notable in the area of child care but can also be seen in other services. I congratulate the witnesses on their well-organised campaign, which has been successful.

I welcome the commitment that has been given to maintain the current arrangements. This is an example of a Government U-turn that should be welcomed. The approach that was proposed made no sense at all. I agree with Deputy Ring's suggestion that it is easy for those who earn six-figure sums to recommend cuts in welfare and community services. By and large, people like that do not have a clue what it is like for people who are working at community level and are trying to get out of the trap of being stuck on welfare. The community employment programme has been extremely successful in that regard. I congratulate those involved in ensuring things will remain as they are.

How many of the existing 10,000 community employment workers receive disability allowance? Perhaps Mr. O'Connor can bank my questions, if that is okay. The Chairman might try to cut him off if he tries to respond now. What type of services are provided, generally speaking, by the community employment projects in which those workers are engaged? Some of the figures provided in the presentation were startling. It was suggested that 2,500 community employment workers are involved in child care, which is an amazing figure if I am reading it right. Mr. O'Connor said "CE provides 25% of community child care workers". Am I right in saying that means there are 2,500 such workers?

Mr. Darragh O’Connor

No. I will come back to it.

Deputy Róisín Shortall

It is a significant figure. The child care system depends completely on the community employment programme. If the double payment were withdrawn, the child care programme at community level would collapse. That was not considered by those who floated these crazy ideas in recent years. It needs to be emphasised that the measure which was proposed would have made very little difference to lone parents who participate in the community employment programme. I refer to calculations that bear in mind the cost of going to work and the fact that rents have increased as a result of community employment payments being taken into consideration. It was a crazy notion because it would have involved taking money with one hand and having to give it back with the other hand. Nobody examined this idea in detail when it was first floated. It is symptomatic of the slash and burn approach that is being taken that no one took the time to examine the relevant figures. The initial proposal did not make sense because in most cases it is cost neutral to make the second payment.

Ms Kingston and Ms Gill have explained clearly the importance of community employment participation on a personal level in terms of self-esteem, its impact on the family and how it can transform one's life. It is critical, however, that when people participate in community employment schemes, a clear route to progress out of community employment is provided. Does SIPTU have information on such a progression route? How many of those participating in community employment schemes are being offered recognised training opportunities such as courses leading to FETAC qualifications? I am aware that many of those working in child care are obtaining FETAC qualifications. I have spoken to constituents in Finglas and Ballymun where there is a high level of participation in recognised courses. It would be helpful if the delegation could provide information in this regard.

Does the delegation have information on the progression rate into employment for participants in community employment schemes? Such progression will have been difficult in recent times. Does the delegation have data for the past ten years?

Overall, I congratulate the delegation on its successful "Your Right Your Fight" campaign. I am a strong believer in community employment and I am conscious of the value and benefits it provides to individuals and communities.

Deputy Charlie O’Connor

I join my colleagues in extending a warm welcome to the delegation and congratulate it on the success of the "Your Right Your Fight" campaign. It is good to see the Gallery is packed because this is an important issue. I thank Mr. O'Connor and his colleagues for affording me and others an opportunity to meet them at local level. When we met in Tallaght village I knew the participants and it was important to hear their story. I took as a compliment the subsequent invitation extended to me to become a member of the board of Tallaght centre for the unemployed and I was pleased to take up the invitation. I am a member of a number of other boards in the Tallaght area where community employment is a core activity. Like my colleagues, I have credibility when I state I strongly support community employment schemes.

Without wishing to politicise the issue, of the nine weekly advice clinics I do, eight of them are in centres where I am minded by workers on community employment schemes. I hope I do not get them into trouble by saying that. People in community employment have an important role. The sense I get from listening to community employment workers such as Ms Kingston and Ms Gill is that these schemes give them something to do, get them out of the house, motivate them, help them interact with others and are good for their CVs.

When the Minister was appointed I invited him to Tallaght in my constituency to listen to the views of community employment scheme workers. We had a successful exchange in Fettercairn and the Minister was subsequently invited to launch the enhancement programmes in Jobstown and Killinarden. I apologise for referring to the various parts of Tallaght but I am trying to give a sense of the great support in my constituency for community employment. No one around this table has hesitated to support the campaign and we were pleased to take an all-party approach to the issue.

I am sure our guests, like everyone else, will be concerned about various matters in the next two weeks. As a Government backbench Deputy, I have no hesitation in arguing that the Government must continue to support those who are less vulnerable. I wish my colleagues in the Opposition well when they take charge of policy in this area, as I suspect they will in the coming months, because difficult times lie ahead.

The "Your Right Your Fight" campaign was outstanding. Despite the cynicism about politicians, we have a role and the community employment board reflected this by choosing not to differentiate between politicians. I congratulate SIPTU on the campaign.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Ba mhaith liom, cosúil leis na Teachtaí eile, comhghairdeas a ghabháil leis na finnéithe as an fheachtas a d'eagraigh siad agus an bua a fuair siad. I congratulate the delegation and hope the news that they have won will not change. We live in interesting times. The "Your Right Your Fight" campaign was well organised and I hope it is an indication that those who are in part-time work or community employment will be more organised in future.

As other members noted, community employment plays a vital role in the community apparatus. In all the community employment projects with which I have been involved participants have shown great enthusiasm for returning to the workforce, whether to join a community employment scheme or take part in training. They understand that they have opportunities to secure full-time employment or retraining.

In these difficult times opportunities for additional work are few and far between. The more training or community employment experience people acquire, the better. Members made this case to the Minister with regard to activation measures. We argued that rather than cutting community employment schemes, more must be done to enhance community employment. Last year's cut in the training allowances for community employment schemes was regrettable. The opposite approach should have been taken. I ask the delegation to comment on what effect this cut had. Did Ms Gill and Ms Kingston notice the impact of the various cuts that have been implemented?

Like Deputy Shortall, I cannot fathom how Colm McCarthy arrived at his proposal on community employment schemes. If one is producing proposals, one should examine their potential impact and at least have statistics to show what savings they will make. I used the parliamentary question process during the summer to expose the fact that the Minister did not have available to him any figures on this matter. Statistics are not gathered to show how many community employment scheme participants are on lone parent or disability payments and a breakdown of other payments made to those in community employment is not available. This means the Government could not show what gain or loss the implementation of a cut would have for the Exchequer.

The Government has accepted the logic of the argument and a campaign is under way to ensure there are no further cuts by stealth. Has the delegation noticed that a number of other small cuts have been made, for instance, in terms of the failure to extend the contracts of community employment participants? I know of a number of cases where people on disability allowance did not have community employment contracts extended despite the fact that such extensions are usually taken for granted. It would be an important development if cuts were being introduced by stealth.

I believe the delegation understated the effects of budget 2010 by overlooking the abolition of the Christmas bonus, the introduction of prescription charges and several other changes. Taken together these changes in the budget had a greater impact on those in receipt of social welfare than the delegation indicated. The other speakers have covered most of the other questions I had. I again thank the delegates for the presentation.

Mr. Darragh O’Connor

Thank you, Chairman. I will deal with some of the questions and my colleague, Ms Byrne, will deal with others.

It is clear from the meetings I and colleagues attended, including community employment scheme workers who are in the public gallery today and sitting at this table, that the Deputies we met not just today but at other times throughout the country have a good awareness of the value of community employment schemes. It appears that there is definite cross-party support for the campaign and community employment schemes in general. We did not have one negative response when we were lobbying. We are deliberately political but not party political. This is an important issue. Our experience has been that it is a concern of all parties.

Deputy Shortall inquired about statistics. Currently, there are approximately 20,000 community employment scheme participants across the country in approximately 2,000 schemes. Approximately half of them are in receipt of some kind of payment. The split is approximately 50:50; there are 5,000 in receipt of some form of disability payment and 5,000 in receipt of a lone parent payment.

Members will be aware from their own areas that many community employment schemes support social services that would otherwise need to be provided directly by the State. They include meals on wheels schemes, child care services, youth projects, drug rehabilitation projects and environmental schemes. A significant number of non-governmental organisations depend on them because they do not have the money to provide administration staff, back-office staff and advice workers. Community employment schemes are involved in a wide gamut of activities. Almost any organisation in the voluntary or community sector has some kind of involvement with community employment schemes.

A total of 25% of staff involved in community child care are community employment scheme workers. It is not the total staff employed in the area. The figure is based on the country as a whole. In Dublin, where there is a higher concentration of community child care and lone parents the figure goes up to more than 90% of the staff in some areas. They are either trained or going through the training process up to FETAC level 5.

Deputies Ó Snodaigh and Ring referred to other cuts. We are waiting to see whether there has been a change in FÁS policy because community employment scheme participants appear to be limited to one year in certain circumstances. We do not know if it is a case of a local manager making that decision, as it does not appear to be a countrywide policy at the moment. We have written to FÁS to find out the position. The reason we would be very concerned about that move is because community employment schemes give an opportunity to people to train or educate themselves and improve their skills. In general, it is impossible to get to a decent level of training, such as FETAC level 5, within one year. One must ask the purpose of community employment schemes. Is it about taking people off the live register for a year or to give them skills so that they might be able to get a job? If community employment schemes are being restricted in that way then one would be wary about the ultimate aim. That is one of the areas that is of growing concern.

The training and materials grants were cut in the previous budget. Training courses cost money and if one needs to train a child care worker, adequate resources are required to do that. A number of community employment schemes are struggling to provide training they wish to provide or that participants wish to engage in. I will hand over to my colleague, Ms Byrne.

Ms Frances Byrne

I thank the Chairman and the members who have welcomed the campaign so warmly. SIPTU, in particular, and IMPACT have been unionising the community employment sector. As the country's biggest trade union SIPTU could have organised a campaign by itself but it was welcome that the first instinct was to involve NGOs such as OPEN, Mental Health Ireland, the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed and Inclusion Ireland. As has been said, it has been a successful campaign. It has also been successful behind the scenes. No one has fallen out with anyone.

Deputy Shortall mentioned that the difference is minimal. She is absolutely right. Sometimes it can be a case of €30 or €40 a week. The Vincentian Partnership has carried out research on lone parents. When they analysed their groceries, it has been the difference between buying fruit and yoghurt. It is not extra money in the pocket because one is losing out on rent supplement or other benefits. Lone parents with one child in particular, depending on their other circumstances, are not eligible for the back to school clothing and footwear allowance as well, which is ridiculous given that for the past five years the Department has encouraged OPEN and other organisations to publicise it because as Deputies are aware, it is not availed of sufficiently. We have cases where people have been turned down although they got it on appeal. There are also people who did not get it even on appeal.

Deputy Shortall is absolutely correct. Progression and the rates into employment are very unclear. Almost all Deputies may have mentioned that they are aware of how important community employment schemes are locally. One thing that is frustrating - a number of Deputies referred to it - is that we do not have data. We ought to have data on progression; who is moving into work and what kind of work. It has been very difficult to get that information. It is welcome to hear Deputy O'Connor call on the people who may well lead the next Government to keep the support for what is at the heart of this campaign. I also urge whatever Deputies in the room find themselves in power in the next Government to examine the issue of data. I urge them to do so from the point of view of OPEN and of other colleagues.

Several Deputies referred to the impact of poverty. Deputies Shortall and Ó Snodaigh spoke about people who are very well off looking at matters from the outside. To be fair to Colm McCarthy, it is confusing when one does not understand the system that some people are getting two payments. There ought to be much better poverty impact indicators. The Government will be able to say, as will the Department of Finance and the Department of Social Protection, that all of the budgets referred to by members, the emergency budget that got rid of the Christmas bonus and the other budgets have all been poverty proofed. That has not been done in the way we understand it because the poverty-proofing exercise does not stand up. It is not good by European standards either. It would be most welcome if that were addressed, whoever is in power. It has been fantastic to have cross-party political support. I am very grateful for it. As lone parents we often find ourselves being marked out as the undeserving poor so it has been welcome to have this support across the country. Both Ms Kingston and Ms Gill wish to address the questions on training.

Ms Hilary Kingston

Questions were asked about the level of training we receive and how advantageous or otherwise it is. Before I became ill I managed to get a degree and then things went pear shaped. I could not work so much any more and was in and out of hospital. Once I started on the CE scheme with Aware, I was encouraged to do some form of progressive training every year. It is almost mandatory. Over the three years I have been working on the scheme, I feel, on the basis of my remit, which pertains to social science, that I have developed very definite, tangible, practical skills that will assist me in my next job. Had I not obtained these skills in the past three years, I would have just been floating. There has been a definite progression and improvement in my skills.

Ms Sarah Gill

I worked in accounts for ten years but never had any qualifications because I did not go to college. I was made redundant a good few years ago and, by working for OPEN on a CE scheme, opportunities presented themselves to me. I have done courses on payroll and accounts at BTEC levels five and six. I never believed I would be sitting here speaking. On behalf of OPEN, I have been on TV3 to talk about cuts. I am a lone parent and have a little girl for whom I want to do my best. There are many lone parents and disabled people who want to do their best. The CE schemes give one this opportunity. I have done seven courses in the two years I have been on the CE scheme. I hope to be granted a third year in February. There are many courses I want to do. I want to further my education so I can return to full-time education and show my daughter that one's future lies in working and that one must go out and make something of oneself.

Ms Jenna Huff

I find it very intimidating to sit here. I am here only because of Deputy Ring, who is a gentleman. I am a recovering addict and I know nothing about politicians. I am primarily a mother, sister and daughter but also a recovering addict on a community employment scheme. I can only speak for myself and my colleagues. There are 21 people on my course. Every day 21 people with 21 different battles come together as one and leave those battles at the door. The progression is unbelievable. I have seen illiterate women in their 50s learn to write short stories and have seen people who had previously never picked up a paintbrush have art hung in galleries. One cannot say that CE schemes are not effective.

With the cuts, about which people worry, managers are now picking and choosing who will get the contracts for next year. This is a considerable issue. People on my CE scheme are terribly nervous about contracts and are asking whether they will get them. The cuts will have a knock-on effect on the community. I am from a middle-class background and am of good parents. CE schemes represent the pillars of the community. They are responsible for meals on wheels, drugs schemes, breakfast clubs and homework clubs. It is very easy for someone on the outside looking in to say money can be taken from the schemes but they should consider the knock-on effect this would have on the lower-class areas. It would be diabolical. When people talk about double payment, they should realise it is not a double payment; we do not work for nothing. We work for 21 hours per week and are entitled to get paid for the work we do. At the end of the week, after paying for child care and transport - I am a single parent and bipolar and must pay for some of my medication - I am left with a week's social welfare.

Chairman

I thank the SIPTU group for attending. This has been an extremely interesting discussion. We will forward the group's concerns to the Minister for Social Protection and will revert to it when we receive a reply. The delegates have been very welcome.

Members should note the select committee will meet to discuss the Estimates next Tuesday from 12:30 p.m. until 2 p.m.

The joint committee adjourned at 11.15 a.m. until 11 a.m. on Wednesday, 8 December 2010.