Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Nov 2002

Vol. 170 No. 12

Community Employment Schemes: Motion.

I move:

That Seanad Éireann calls on the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment to honour the commitment of the Government in respect of community employment places as outlined in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness; seeks an immediate cessation of any reduction in places pending full consultation with existing schemes; and further calls on the Government to recognise the enormous positive contribution made by the participants to the community employment schemes and to community development generally.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, to the House. Yet again we are seeing this Government attacking the most vulnerable people in our society. It is time to expose the lies that were told at the last general election on the issue of community employment.

This issue affects every county. In the current round of cutbacks in excess of 10,000 community employment jobs could be lost. With recent redundancies and the rising rate of unemployment, there will be even greater pressure on job seekers. It is those who rely on community employment schemes who will find it most difficult to secure permanent jobs.

Community employment schemes provide a unique opportunity for people who lack training or experience to gain vital skills to move into mainstream employment. These schemes reduce dependency on social welfare and provide much needed support for a wide range of social and community projects. We are demanding that the Government abide by its commitment given in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness and resist the temptation to slash these vitally important jobs within the social economy.

The continuation of community employment schemes at the same levels of availability as in 2002 is vitally important in order to allow everyone the opportunity to work. The deterioration in the economy and the rising level of unemployment will mean that people who are being displaced from community employment schemes will not be able to gain access to other work on the open market. It is essential to continue the training and employment opportunities for the long-term unemployed and people with disabilities who would not otherwise have access to such opportunities.

The viability of the projects and activities of every community group are now dependent on the participation of people on community employment schemes. Almost every community hall, sporting organisation and health care facility in every parish is dependent on part-time employment of local people through the FÁS-funded schemes. I acknowledge the work undertaken by community groups throughout the country with the assistance of these schemes.

We on this side of the House are committed to maintaining participation in these schemes at the same level as in 2002. It is essential for community development and the self-esteem of the scheme participants that they are allowed to continue to work in the community. I call on everyone on the opposite side to take a stand on this important issue and not allow the financial mismanagement of the Department of Finance to be an excuse to eliminate a very successful idea which over the years has given many thousands of participants a great opportunity to gain work experience and return to the workplace on a full-time basis.

We should be conscious of the fact that those who cannot work full time on the grounds of major disability deserve a break. Fine Gael fundamentally believes that people should have the opportunity to work and seek to be gainfully occupied through employment.

The Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, recently stated in the Dáil that, 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 the 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 community employment in 2002, the Minister stated, is expected to be in the region of 28,000, with a projected year end participation rate of 25,000. What is to happen to the 3,000 at a minimum who will be displaced when we consider that unemployment is unfortunately on the rise again?

Supervisors of community employment schemes have accused the Government of failing to consult them about the planned cuts which will affect thousands of jobs. They say that up to 10,000 participants in the schemes, as well the 700 supervisors themselves, will lose their jobs if the cuts anticipated in the internal FÁS review go ahead. I look forward to hearing the Minister of State's views on that.

The Department is maintaining that no decisions have been taken yet about future funding for the schemes, but the House will be aware that there is mounting speculation that the number of places is to be reduced from 25,000 by the end of the year. This arose as a result of the internal FÁS document which was leaked a month or more ago. The Government's Estimates, due to be published tomorrow, will presumably end the uncertainty, but I hope the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, will tell us the position.

The supervisors of the schemes state that cuts along the lines envisaged will cause devastation to communities throughout the State and this is undoubtedly true if they are as forecast. I find it amazing that the supervisors have not been consulted about any proposed cuts. It is appalling that such major decisions are apparently being made without including in the consultation and decision-making process those most affected. Supervisors would like to point out the full human value of the schemes which provide employment for people who are over 25 and on social welfare for a year or more.

It would be socially unacceptable to tamper with these schemes in any major way. These schemes would be needed even in an economy with near full employment. Unfortunately, the economy is not in such a healthy position; it is deteriorating. There have been over 40,000 redundancies in the past 20 months or so. As we can now see, the employment situation has become more volatile.

Many small towns and villages are totally dependent on these schemes to provide employment and to get much needed and highly beneficial work done. We all know the contribution the schemes have made to the development of services for local communities. The Government should be aware of the concern in these communities at the recent reductions in the schemes and the prospect of further cuts.

We are aware that FÁS is undertaking a major review of the schemes. I call on the Minister to assure the House that FÁS is merely exploring options and that no cuts of a serious nature, such as are being speculated about, will take place. The destruction of community employment would be an absolute disaster. Surely all will acknowledge the beneficial and productive work being done by community employment and the disadvantage communities would suffer as a result of cuts. It seems certain that numbers will be reduced. We must avoid inflicting further pain on communities which are most in need of the effort being made by community employment.

We all have personal experience of the beneficial work being done. The entire Ring of Kerry is totally dependent on community employment schemes. In Killarney the beautiful river walk by the river Deenagh on Port Road as well as the footpath and stone wall have been provided by a community employment scheme. Many Deputies will have canvassed in the village of Scartaglin – a former mayor of Kerry resides there – and will have seen the beneficial work done there by a scheme. All Members will have heard of Sneem, which has won major awards in the Tidy Towns competition on many occasions and which has been beautified by community employment schemes.

I plead with the Minister to ensure there will be no reduction in community employment schemes below the 2002 level.

I second the motion and congratulate my colleague, Senator Coghlan, who placed this motion on the Order Paper more than a month ago and who has advocated this issue on behalf of our party in the Seanad.

We will withdraw this motion unreservedly if the Minister can give a commitment to the House tonight that there will be no cuts in community employment. If that commitment is given there will be no need for this motion. This intention has been outlined in the motion and in the statements issued by Fine Gael on this subject. We wait to hear what the Minister has to say. The intention of the motion is to elicit clarification of the Government's intentions and commitment on this important issue.

Community employment works. It is one of the few Government interventions which succeeds in encouraging people back to work who have been out of the labour market for a considerable period. It has created benefits throughout the country. It is important, now that unemployment is rising, that the many low-skilled people who have not had a chance to work in the Celtic tiger economy and who now face unemployment be given the opportunity to come back to work through community employment schemes. There is all-party consensus that community employment schemes are working, particularly in disadvantaged communities.

The squabbling that took place between the Tánaiste and the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Kitt, in the course of the general election was, therefore, ridiculous. On that occasion Deputy Kitt gave an absolute guarantee that no community employment places would be lost. On the "Liveline" radio programme on 15 May, saying he was acting on the direction of the Taoiseach, he said the party had not been consulted on the restructuring of the schemes. The Tánaiste said the restructuring of the schemes and the reduction of the total numbers on the schemes was a Cabinet decision. Deputy Kitt went on to say there were ideological differences between Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats over the move. However, these comments were dismissed as electioneering by PD sources.

Where does the Government stand on this issue? I can understand the spats that take place at election time when people on all sides of the House are looking for votes. However, having read the comments of the Minister of State and the Tánaiste, I have come to the view that Deputy Harney is telling the truth. She wants to cut the schemes. She is responding to the Deloitte & Touche report published 18 months ago which came to that conclusion. I have read that report and disagree with its conclusion. However, the Tánaiste is being honest about this issue because she has always been ideologically opposed to subsidised employment. That is a fair point and one which I will debate with her at any time. I object to the Government's duplicity during the general election campaign when an absolute commitment was given by Deputy Kitt that not one job would be lost. I ask the Minister to state Government policy is on this issue. Can he say he has the unequivocal support of both Government parties on this key issue?

Community employment is not merely important for the individual to whom it gives an opportunity to train and return to the workforce. The schemes are also important for the community. These are real jobs in the real economy which, if they are displaced, will not be done by anyone else. Twenty years ago people did this sort of work voluntarily, but they are not doing it now. The voluntary capacity to do jobs for nothing no longer exists and people expect to be paid for the work they do. If community employment jobs disappear key tasks in many areas will not be done. Community centres will close and pre-school facilities and services for the elderly will disappear. In recent years we have taken an enlightened approach to this issue. We have recognised the need for subsidised employment because of the reduction in the number of people volunteering in their communities. Key jobs have been done by participants in schemes and by their supervisors.

We all know of schemes that have worked well in our own areas. In the past month representatives of five such schemes in my own constituency have told me they are facing reductions in the number of participants on their schemes. Are these people making this up or are they hallucinating? The Government tells us we will not see a fundamental reduction in the number of places, yet people in my constituency, and I suspect in others, are telling me they are losing places. What is going on?

That is the context in which this important debate is taking place. We need clarity on this issue. The Government must speak with one voice and not with the two we heard during the course of the recent election so that we know exactly where we are going.

Successive Governments have provided national lottery and other funding for sports and community facilities throughout the country. I congratulate the Government and their predecessors on the increase in money provided for capital programmes. However, unless community employment schemes can be established to run these new facilities they will become white elephants

Jobstown, a deprived area which has recently gone through an economic transformation, has a wonderful new flood-lit soccer pitch. Unfortunately we have no one to run the facility or to secure it. Joy riding and other anti-social activities take place there every night because we have no one to secure the site or to organise teams and run the facility. The Government has invested capital funding in building up the capacity of sports clubs and community centres but if it reduces community employment places no one will be available to run them.

We must build up capacity in the social economy. Some people on the right regard the social economy as an anathema. Any civilised society that has a social economy and understands the importance of supporting jobs like this will understand the importance of supporting community employment schemes. I ask the Minister to rethink the Government's approach and state something with clarity tonight in the context of this debate.

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Seanad Éireann" and substitute the following:

"supports the Government's continuing commitment to the community employment programme, notes the Government is honouring a commitment made under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, and affirms the continued relevance of the programme as a labour market integration measure for the long-term unemployed, and the important contribution of community employment to community services."

The purpose of community employment is as a transitional programme to provide work experience and training for the long-term unemployed with a view to their reintegration into open labour market employment. 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 number 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 estimated year-end participation rate for 2002 is 25,000.

The Minister of State with special responsibility for labour affairs, Deputy Fahey, on Monday, 11 November 2002 clarified the position on support for the community employment scheme and I am glad that he corrected some misleading stories which have been published recently. The Minister of State stated that, contrary to recent reports that the Government was set to axe 13,000 community employment places before the end of the year, reductions on such a scale would not happen this year. Participation levels in community employment this year will average 28,000, with an estimated closing level at year-end of 25,000. Public speculation about the likely level of reductions next year due to budgetary constraints is also seriously exaggerated.

Community employment schemes provide important services for deprived communities in areas like education, child care, environmental work and the arts. They have a proven track record of giving long-term unemployed persons the work experience they need to compete in the jobs market. They have also been the backbone of local projects in our most deprived communities.

Under the community employment programme, public sector and voluntary organisations are grant-aided by FÁS in respect of sponsoring a community employment project and they, in turn, benefit in a secondary way by being able to carry out worthwhile work which they could not otherwise undertake. Suitable projects are those that can be shown to respond to a clearly identified community need and which also develop the work skills of participants, thereby enhancing their prospects of obtaining a mainstream job.

Community employment initiatives focus on the kind of work that would not otherwise take place. Schemes are run through community groups which identify local needs, whether it be services for the disabled, establishing community media services, coaching children or organising tidy town projects. Community employment schemes also support local development strategies in many disadvantaged areas.

Community employment has proved particularly successful in encouraging older unemployed persons to take up training. The initiative benefits both parties involved. The projects have been of lasting benefit to communities. In particular, the provision of child care services has had an enormous impact, enabling a significant number of women to return to work. The schemes have also proved to be great catalysts in motivating unemployed persons to find work.

At the end of August 2002, there were 32,038 in FÁS employment schemes, including 26,861 in community employment. There were a further 11,094 on training programmes or schemes for the unemployed and job seekers. The corresponding figure for those on FÁS employment schemes for July was 32,499, including 27,420 on community employment, while 12,334 were participating in the various other training programmes or schemes.

The primary purpose of community employment is to provide a transition programme to reintegrate the long-term unemployed into open labour market jobs. The programme is designed to provide temporary rather than ongoing opportunities for persons unemployed for a minimum of 12 months on the live register. Participants in the programme work for an average of 19.5 hours per week.

Participation levels in community employment are gradually being reduced, in accordance with the Government's decision in 1999 to restructure the programme, reflecting the falling numbers of the 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. That is the crux of where we are coming from today and in line with a commitment made under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.

Discussions on the mainstreaming of community employment health services, which will involve the phased transfer of current community employment funding on such services to the Department of Health and Children, are at an advanced stage. The Programme for Prosperity and Fairness included an agreement on the reduction of 4,500 places in line with changed economic circumstances and the transfer of the financial equivalent of 5,000 places to the social economy programme. This would bring the participation level in community employment down to some 28,000 places and mainstreaming of places into the education sector would reduce this further. On completion, the equivalent of some 4,500 places will have been transferred to the education sector.

Participation levels in community employment in 2003 will be decided by a number of factors, including the rate of progression by participants into the open labour market, the trends in employment and unemployment, the completion of mainstreaming of places into the education sector, consideration of any further element of mainstreaming and the budget available for the scheme. The budget available for 2003 will be included in the Estimates volume, due to be published shortly.

The administration of community employment, including the allocation of places to individual projects, is a matter for FÁS which prioritises projects according to the types of services provided and levels of unemployment in the locality and co-ordinates reductions to minimise the effects on groups and services most in need of community employment. Priorities include the drugs task forces, child care service provision, the health sector and designated disadvantaged areas covered by the new RAPID programme and BMW regions. There is a need to guarantee that localities get the best value from the reduced pool of community employment places now available and that priority is accorded to the most productive projects.

I commend the Fine Gael group for putting this motion before the House. We are fully in support of it and it has been tabled at a very opportune time when the issue is causing much concern in many communities.

Senator Hanafin is correct in referring to the community employment schemes as labour market intervention. He is also correct in stating the object of the exercise is to ensure progression into mainstream employment for the long-term unemployed. As we all know, the community employment schemes, originally known as social employment schemes, were established at a time of high unemployment by a former leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Quinn, when Minister for Labour. It has to be said they were some of the most successful schemes ever introduced. We all see the benefits of the schemes in our own communities.

As a form of labour market intervention, they have been extremely necessary during times of high unemployment. As we do not currently have such levels of unemployment, the question then arises as to the role of community employment schemes. There are two very important points that need to be made in this regard. Progression to mainstream employment from either long-term or short-term unemployment will not happen for some.

It is not a simple matter of asking the reason everybody is not working and there is a need for community employment if there are loads of jobs available to the extent that there are labour force shortages and that labour has to be imported in some sectors. One of the reasons is that some need to remain in supported employment circumstances, as Senator Brian Hayes pointed out. I have spoken to personnel in FÁS and ascertained that some simply cannot manage to maintain a job in mainstream employment and need the support of a community employment scheme. This has to be stated very clearly and must be acknowledged.

The valuable role played by the community employment scheme has been repeatedly mentioned. It is valuable not only for those employed but also for the communities who benefit. Have we reached the point that this social contribution no longer has any value or is only of value at a time of high unemployment? It is time to decide the value of social employment. Work under the community employment scheme covers a wide area, including support for the tidy towns competitions, voluntary sporting groups and crèches and support to enable women to join the workforce for the first time or to return to it.

There appears to be an IBEC agenda in the thinking of the Minister and the Department to the effect that the availability of the community employment scheme is preventing people from engaging in mainstream employment. Nothing could be further from the truth because the vast majority of people would wish to be in mainstream employment in pursuit of a career.

Many Senators will have received letters from participants in the community employment scheme outlining the horrendous effect these cuts will have on them. It will impact on a range of individual and community activities and it should not be viewed in the simple terms of statistics and logistics. I received a letter, a copy of which was sent to the Minister and other Oireachtas Members in the Tipperary North constituency, from community employment scheme participants who are working in Roscrea in a group called Roscrea 2000, a successfully operating ADM funded project. They point out that those who will be removed from community employment due to the cuts will return to the live register. What is to be gained from this? The benefits of the community employment scheme to this group is manifest in the work of its members on projects in housing estates and in their participation in the tidy towns competition. The group also provides child care facilities operated by fully qualified community employment scheme participants, which for a small charge provides support to lone parents, unemployed persons and a wide range of people who otherwise could not afford commercial child care charges, to enable them to take up training courses or employment while having their children cared for in a safe environment. What will happen to these people?

Other services provided by community employment scheme participants in the Roscrea 2000 resource centre include a Traveller laundry facility and pre-school, a canteen and cleaning service, after school homework cub assistance, youth summer camp assistance, service and assistance to second chance education programmes, night time security to enable the smooth running of the centre at night for commercial courses and housing estate maintenance. The wide range of skills obtained by a number of community employment scheme participants in the Roscrea 2000 project include child care, foundation level one and two, first aid, computing, advance and DCTL, stone masonry, gardening, landscaping and cleaning proficiency operators. What will happen to these participants and to the skills that will otherwise be lost? What will happen to those in Roscrea who avail of the services of the Roscrea 2000 group?

This letter is only one example of the effect that the community employment scheme cuts will have on communities like Roscrea. It is a short-sighted and unacceptable measure. For what purpose are the courses offered by the community employment scheme, including its contribution to the community, being set aside? It is not good enough, especially at a time when the downturn in the economy could lead to higher unemployment. In these circumstances we should be maintaining rather than cutting the scheme.

I thank the House for giving me the opportunity speak on this important motion and I thank the Fine Gael Party for moving it.

It is appropriate to hold a debate on the community employment programme as it gives me the opportunity to reaffirm Government policy on its operation and to correct a number of misleading and exaggerated media comments suggesting the cancellation of community employment places before the end of this year and in 2003. There are no Government plans to implement reductions of approximately 13,000 places in the current year, as suggested by some sources.

Wait until tomorrow.

The Book of Estimates will deal with the position for next year. Participation levels on community employment scheme programmes this year will average 28,000 people and the estimated closing level at the end of the year will be approximately 25,000 compared with 30,809 participants at the beginning of the year.

Public speculation about the level of reductions in the community employment scheme which are likely next year due to budgetary constraints are also seriously exaggerated. I am sure that will disappoint some people.

Cuts are nevertheless likely.

Participation levels in the community employment scheme programmes in 2003 will be decided by a number of factors, including the rate of progression by participants in the open labour market, the underlying trend in employment and unemployment, the completion of the mainstreaming of places in the education sector and consideration of any further element of mainstreaming in the budget available for the scheme. The budget available for 2003 will be included in the Book of Estimates, which will be published tomorrow.

The primary purpose of community employment is to provide a transitional labour market programme of work experience and training for the long-term unemployed with a view to their reintegration into the open labour market employment. As part of the overall restructuring of the programme approved by the Government in 1999, place numbers are being reduced on a phased basis in line with the reduced levels of long-term unemployment and a strategy shift in policy in favour of greater investment in training, from which there is a greater level of progression to employment.

The Programme for Prosperity and Fairness included agreement on the reduction of 4,500 places in line with changed economic circumstances and the transfer of the financial equivalent of 5,000 places to the social economy programme. This would reduce the participation level in community employment scheme programmes to 28,000 places and the current mainstreaming of community employment scheme places to the education sector will further reduce this. Officials in my Department have confirmed this on a number of occasions with the social partner representative in the standing committee on the labour market and it has also been clarified in responses by the Minister to parliamentary questions on the restructuring of the community employment scheme.

On completion in 2003, the equivalent of 4,500 places will have been transferred to the education sector. Mainstreaming involves the transfer of the relevant funding from the FÁS budget to the relevant Department with primary functional responsibility for the services in question. This is happening at present in the case of the community employment scheme school services. Under this arrangement an additional €58 million is being made directly available to schools on an annual basis, phased in by 2003, to provide replacement services in schools. This will enable schools to improve on the level of secretarial and caretaking supports that are currently in place through the community employment scheme and to provide greater certainty and flexibility in the funding of such services.

It is important to view current participation levels in community employment schemes in a general labour market context. In this respect it is useful to consider the second quarter results for 2002 of the CSO's quarterly national household survey. They show that there are currently 21,600 long-term unemployed persons – a reduction of 51,000 or 70%, in the period since the Government decision to restructure community employment. The unemployment rate is currently 4.2%, representing a marginal increase on 2001. The long-term unemployment rate is 1.2%. Total employment has increased by 230,000 in the period since 1998; employment now stands at 1,749,900, an increase of 33,400 since the second quarter of 2001.

The number of work permits issued increased from 6,000 in 1999 to over 36,400 in 2001. Some 36,000 work permits have been issued to date this year. Despite the reduction in place numbers from 39,420 in April 1998 to the 25,000 places anticipated at the year end, there are still more community employment places than there are long-term unemployed. Many low skilled jobs continue to be filled by overseas personnel from both the EU and further afield. In this context our policy on work permits is kept under constant review having regard to domestic labour market circumstances.

The administration of community employment, including the allocation of places to individual projects, is a matter for FÁS. FÁS prioritises projects according to the types of services provided and levels of unemployment in a locality. The agency also makes every effort to co-ordinate reductions so as to minimise the effects on groups and services which are most in need of community employment. Drugs task force activity and child care service provision are ring-fenced from any reductions, and projects in disadvantaged areas under the new RAPID initiative area are given top priority. Community employment places in the health sector, which includes personal assistant services, are being maintained at the start of the year level to ensure continuity of the delivery of these services.

Persons in receipt of unemployment benefit currently represent 25.3% of total current participation on community employment, followed by lone parents at 22.8%, persons in receipt of unemployment assistance at 22.6% and persons with disabilities at 15.5%. Some 62% of community employment activity in 2002 supports community services such as health care assistants, community centre staff and ICTU employment centres. Other areas supported include services such as those relating to the environment, sport and coaching. Community employment was originally conceived as an active labour market programme intended to assist the progression of long-term unemployed persons back to work by providing market related work experience. However, over the years, and particularly during periods of high unemployment, community employment has been used to address a much wider range of problems utilising the high availability of labour. As community employment participation expanded, a whole range of community services developed a dependency on a large and steady supply of community employment participants.

The basis on which community employment has been operated over the years has given rise to two issues of concern which have been brought to the fore as community employment levels are reduced in the context of the positive labour market environment which now prevails. The first issue is the very large dependency on the availability of community employment personnel to support a wide range of community services which are now regarded by local communities as essential, and which are important to the delivery of other Government social initiatives such as child care. The second issue relates to the loss of labour market progression, exacerbated as the absolute numbers of participants on community employment reduces, with the more difficult to progress groups coming to represent a greater percentage of available community employment places.

I wish to assure this House that the Government is very much aware of the important contribution which community employment has made to the development of services for local communities over the years. Ministers are also aware of the concern in communities at the recent reductions in community employment and at the prospect of further reductions in the future in the context of current budgetary constraints. However, there is a need to ensure that communities get the best value from the reduced pool of community employment now available and that priorities reflect current rather than past needs. A very clear and tangible demonstration of the Government's awareness of the importance of support for community services and their development, is the recent establishment of the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs.

I wish to advise the House of a number of developments which are in train and which will have an important bearing on the future scale and type of community employment activity. FÁS is currently undertaking an internal review of community employment which will include an assessment of the role of community employment both from a labour market perspective and taking account of the provision of community services. The Programme for Prosperity and Fairness mandated review of active labour market programmes is also being progressed under the aegis of the standing committee on the labour market, chaired by my Department. This review is being facilitated by a report by Indecon consultants on the effectiveness of existing active labour market programmes, which is now being finalised. A key focus of this report relates to the reorientation of programmes, including the development of the training component of the community employment programme, so that the collective focus will be on the needs of the most marginalised and disadvantaged groups to ensure the emphasis is on progression to the open labour market and is relevant to its needs. Policy in regard to the participation of older persons on community employment will also form an important part of the review process.

Given that the issues arising have an impact beyond the labour market dimension, a cross-departmental, senior officials group has been asked to consider options for the future provision of community services, having regard to the contribution now being made by community employment and concerns expressed by the social partners and key stakeholders. The experience to date with the implementation of the social economy programme will also be of relevance in this regard. The outcome of these various initiatives will inform the Government's consideration of options for the future of community employment, as will the outcome of the 2003 Estimates process.

What is it?

I wish to update this House on progress in regard to the operation of the social economy programme. Since it was launched in September 2000 there has been a significant level of interest in the roll-out of the social economy programme, as the following data demonstrate. There have been 773 applications for grant support to develop business plans; 600 of these applications for business plan grant support, up to a maximum of €5,080 in each case, have been approved; 324 social economy enterprises have been approved for full start-up grant support, with an employment commitment of approximately 2000 grant supported employees; 230 of these approved enterprises have commenced operations and 1,450 grant supported employees are in place, two-thirds of whom are working full time. The budget approved for the social economy programme in the current year is €20.5 million compared to €6.6 million in 2001. This funding is now fully committed to the social economy enterprises which have been approved to date. Accordingly, no new enterprises are being approved at present. The 2003 budget for the programme will be settled in the context of the Estimates process.

Cuts again.

Since I have taken over responsibility for community employment schemes I am acutely aware of the concerns, both of those involved in schemes and of the Members of both Houses. Because of reduced long-term unemployment levels and the fact that this year we have already issued 36,000 work permits to non-EU nationals, there is no credibility in the argument that there is no need to make cuts in respect of the numbers. I assure the House that the cuts will be kept to a minimum. I am satisfied that we can have a much better community employment programme under the review that is now taking place.

With respect to the question asked by my friend and county colleague, Senator Burke, it would be my intention to look at the categories where progression is not possible. In the case in rural or inner city areas where people over 55 or 60 years of age would clearly return to the live register, it would be my intention to try to come up with a programme to allow such people to continue on community employment schemes. That would also be the case with people with disabilities who have difficulty gaining access to the jobs market. Where progression is seen to be difficult we will endeavour to find a way that allows a continuation by those categories in the scheme.

The policy change being brought about is very significant. As everyone is aware, the scheme started as a labour market programme to deal with long-term unemployment when it was our most significant problem. A range of significant community services have grown up as a result of the schemes. Consequently, as part of the policy change, I intend to copperfasten good community services which can be supported by community employment. No more than any other job the State provides, there must be cost efficiency and cost effectiveness. We cannot support community employment schemes to provide community services where they are not being provided effectively and efficiently or where there is not a contribution from the community towards their cost. Unfortunately, volunteerism has almost ceased to exist. Volunteerism is no longer required because we have been able to place people on such schemes. The vitally important principle of volunteerism must be brought back.

In the absence of community employment schemes.

We will certainly support volunteerism with the provision of good quality community employment schemes. The review now taking place will give us, albeit with lesser numbers, a more effective scheme—

What is the Minister of State suggesting?

—targeting those most in need and whom we want to continue to support. We want to provide more and better training opportunities for those in a position to progress provided they are given the proper training and employment opportunities. We also want to provide a more effective community service in areas from child care, health care, drugs programmes and environmental support for sports clubs and community halls.

With fewer people and, perhaps, a restructuring of community employment, we can have a new policy with new objectives. I am satisfied it will be more than sufficient to meet the required needs.

I am happy to welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, to the House. I am glad that he is the person with direct responsibility in this area. While I agree with him on the issue of volunteerism, I do not think the clock can be turned back – that day is gone. I hope the element of volunteerism will always be in the Irish character.

I have quiet a lot of experience in this area. I was involved at the beginning of the gay movement when we started the Hirschfeld Centre in Temple Bar. It was run on a voluntary basis for a while, but for most that only lasts a while. Volunteerism is more punishing for those from the most disadvantaged sectors of society. Volunteering is all right for someone from a comparatively privileged background. I can continue to do it for the rest of my life because I have the luxury, money, a nice home and a car. We found that we had to start introducing incentives. First, we gave free coffee and buns in the coffee bar, next it was free admission to the disco and then we paid for taxis. We ended up paying our staff. That is human nature. As a microcosm, it is the reason for communism fizzling out. Unfortunately, the human animal is a beast and the carrot, as well as the stick, must be offered. Volunteering is a decent element in our national character. While I hope it will survive, I do not think we can rely on it to solve problems, particularly in disadvantaged areas.

Circumstances change very rapidly. I know that cuts were agreed in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness and that there is to be a review within FÁS. It was said this was because FÁS was established to provide temporary employment opportunities for people in disadvantaged areas or the long-term unemployed. With the arrival of the Celtic tiger it was felt such schemes were no longer needed. With the widespread announcement of job losses I am afraid the context in which the decisions to make such cuts were made has changed. I accept that cuts are inevitable and that they are only beginning, but I also think they are necessary. I hope too much damage is not done.

I am sure the Minister of State has already reflected on the impact on the individuals involved. Many have been given hope by these schemes and the cruellest thing to do is take this away. I heard a heroin addict, who was on methadone and involved in one of the schemes, speak movingly about it on the radio recently. He was in employment and felt useful for the first time in his life – he had regained his dignity. What is he going to do if we pull the rug from under him? Is he going to go back on heroin? If he does, that will present a much greater cost, both socially and economically.

There have been other changes also. At the outset only a quarter of places were taken up by women, now it is over half – that is marvellous. Women are disadvantaged by the structure. Now that so many women are involved in the scheme it is a pity that it should be cut back insensitively. I hope whatever cuts are necessary are taken in conjunction with the internal review in FÁS and bear these difficulties in mind.

I am glad the Minister of State raised the question of age. It is inappropriate that a Government scheme like this should discriminate on the basis of age, particularly as the Equality Authority forbids it. I have had voluminous correspondence from a woman who desperately wanted to be involved but was over 65 years. Aeons of boredom stretched in front of her – that is real social disease. She came alive, became active and developed a social life through one of the schemes.

Members, even new ones, will realise that I am a person of extremely narrow horizons and very parochially minded. I mentioned being involved with a project in Temple Bar, but I have also been involved with the James Joyce Centre on the north side of the city. It is known to a number of Members who have attended our Bloomsday celebrations. After an initial spurt of volunteerism which got some of the structural work done, a FÁS scheme was put in place which was regarded as the flagship scheme in the north inner city. It was a wonderful encouragement and a tremendous help to have it in the days when there was a high level of unemployment in the area. Over 60% of our intake went on to full-time paid employment in their own area – a terrific record. An educational programme is also in place.

National school groups from Ballyfermot, Finglas and all over Dublin have visited the centre. Little gentlemen from Eton were exposed to the realities of the north inner city through our education programme. We got a wonderful letter back from their English master saying they had never encountered anything like it in their lives. I am not surprised and I hope it broadened the scope and range of their imaginations. We are approaching a significant cultural event, the 100th anniversary of Bloomsday in 2004. We have lost our two librarians who are paid with the assistance of the National Library and we will lose the FÁS scheme as well even though it is a flagship scheme.

I was glad the Minister of State mentioned the social economy programme. We very much hope, with the assistance of FÁS, to move on to that but the difficulty is that one must be able to show that one is moving towards profit and is self-sufficient. That is not always possible for the most socially constructive schemes. However, I believe that is possible for the James Joyce Centre and I ask the Minister of State to bear this noble enterprise in mind when he makes his various decisions.

I would never challenge Senator Norris in regard to Bloomsday or James Joyce because he is the noted expert.

Would it not be a pity if we lost the staff looking after it?

The Senator referred to the national drugs strategy group which has been allocated 800 places on community employment schemes and there has not been a reduction in that number. However, there is a question mark over them this year. Bearing Senator Norris's comments in mind, I would like to ensure these places are not affected because they are important.

I welcome the Minister of State back to the Seanad. He has immense experience, both in the Dáil and the Seanad, as Minister and Minister of State. Nobody has more practical experience of these schemes than him and I have no doubt he will ensure the maximum number of places is retained. However, we are living in the real world and we must be practical.

The Senator is slipping.

I am satisfied about the Government's continued commitment to the community employment programme, which was set out in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. There is no doubt the employment programme is an overwhelming success. The primary purpose of community employment is to provide work experience and training for the long-term unemployed to facilitate their re-entry to the labour market and the Minister of State is trying to ensure that continues to be the case.

A significant number of people participated in the scheme in 1998 with almost 40,000 benefiting and they carried out extremely good work. As part of an overall restructuring programme place numbers have been reduced since with the estimated participation of 25,000 people in 2002 whereas the original target for the year was 28,000. The reduction reflects the significant decrease in the numbers of long-term unemployed and the shift in emphasis from work experience programmes to training.

There was no reduction in the 800 places allocated to the national drugs strategy group or the 1,250 places allocated for child care, an area in which a reduction would be totally unacceptable. Community employment places in the health system have also not been reduced to ensure continuity in the delivery of services. The Minister of State is well aware of the work of carers and the provision of care for people with disabilities. Ultimately, this is the responsibility of the health boards under the Department of Health and Children and is not necessarily the subject of a training scheme. However, the Minister of State will be conscious of the need to retain those places.

The administration of community employment, including the allocation of places, is a matter for FÁS primarily. FÁS prioritises the projects and co-ordinates the reductions. It has undertaken an internal review of community employment which includes an assessment of the role of the scheme in providing community services. In addition, given the multi-dimensional effect of community employment, a cross-departmental group of senior officials has also been asked to consider options for the future provision of community services.

The Minister brings practical experience on the ground to bear on this issue. Most Members may have received representations about community employment but I have not yet received a complaint regarding reductions in the constituency of Roscommon.

The constituency is Longford-Roscommon.

The Senator is not on the ground.

Order, please.

I refer to the practicalities of the scheme. The Minister has examined them and in some areas there is a requirement for 12 to 14 workers when seven workers would suffice and the job could be carried out efficiently and effectively.

What has the Senator to say about the others?

We will find jobs for them.

Senator Leyden, without interruption.

FÁS has great difficulty recruiting people for schemes where I live. Unemployment is not high enough and work permits are being provided to foreigners.

Unemployment is high enough in north and south Roscommon.

Hundreds of permits have been issued to people from South America and continental Europe so that they can work in Roscommon town. Do Opposition Members live in the real world?

The Senator is finding it difficult to settle back in.

He is goading us.

Order, please. Senator Burke will have an opportunity to contribute later and Senator Leyden should not address the Opposition.

A community employment scheme will be reintroduced in my parish of Athleague but it is extremely difficult to recruit people to participate in it. Community employment provides training in many areas and the Minister of State is faced with the reality of creating jobs for those who participate. A young man from my village took up a scheme and was fully trained as a stonemason. He cannot keep up with the work he is being offered. There have been significant achievements under the scheme. It has been reintroduced in Roscommon town to assist in the Tidy Towns competition and improvements can be seen in the area. The scheme provides for a form of national reconstruction, which has been undertaken over the years.

A review of the scheme is timely and there could not be a better Minister of State than Deputy Fahey to carry it out because he is from Galway in rural Ireland. He is aware of the position on the ground and knows about the work carried out by carers and carer's assistants who are recruited by FÁS. When the audit has been carried out, the Minister of State should outline what has been achieved under community employment to highlight the sterling service that has been provided.

In a relatively good economic climate, he is fighting to maintain the maximum number of places. He would be much more comfortable if the maximum number was retained. The Book of Estimates will be published tomorrow and the budget is on 4 December and we must face up to realities.

There will be more cutbacks.

We cannot live beyond our means. The current economic position pales into insignificance in comparison to 1987. Some Senators would not survive if they had to face the 10% cut in funding I had to face as a Minister of State in the Department of Health. Many of us lost our seats subsequently as a result but that is life. Let us be realistic. I hope Fine Gael does not get into Government again but, if it does, I hope its members face up to realities. How many community employment schemes would have been retained if Fine Gael had been able to implement its plans to placate taxi drivers and Eircom shareholders?

We would all have taxis.

I compliment the Minister of State and wish him well in his work. I hope he gets as much as he can for his Department in the Estimates. He made an excellent presentation to the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party earlier. His most telling contribution was when he asked why should we insist on recruiting 15 or 16 workers for a scheme when eight workers could do the job as efficiently and effectively. When the extra eight workers cannot be recruited why make it a precondition that they must be recruited? I wish the Minister well in his work and I hope the scheme will be continued, particularly for priority groups, such as child care, the elderly, carers and those involved in drug abuse.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to support the motion and to welcome the Minister of State to the Seanad. We anticipated that the Minister of State would give us factual details about the current position, but he has caused more confusion. He read his speech, but when he spoke off the cuff he almost contradicted it. The reason is that there is political rivalry in his own party. Senator Brian Hayes spoke about the differences between the Progressive Democrats and Fianna Fáil in relation to community employment schemes. It would be a pity if political rivalry in one constituency ruined such schemes. The Minister of State and the Minister have responsibility for community employment schemes. However, the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív, stated recently that a new rural social economy programme would be established to provide secure community rated employment opportunities for persons in families eligible for farm assist schemes. It is obvious the Minister of State is not aware that his senior constituency colleague has his own scheme.

We are talking about the same schemes.

During the lifetime of the last Government, the Minister of State was responsible for shafting the Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, from his portfolio in the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands because he operated, what he called, a slush fund which he used to improve roads, rivers, drains and bridges in his part of the constituency. When he went to the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, he created a new scheme, CLÁR, which was beneficial to areas of declining population. He used it to its maximum potential. In an effort not to be outdone in his new portfolio, he invented a new scheme about which the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, does not know anything. He says it is the same scheme and that he is working with him. I am delighted because I was confused about the level of co-operation in that regard.

I assure the Deputy there is full co-operation.

There is confusion over the information the Minister, Deputy Harney, is making available to the Minister of State. An article in The Irish Independent of 5 October entitled, “Lone Parents Set To Suffer Most From Work Scheme Cuts”, stated that a confidential report from an internal FÁS review group highlighted moves to cut a further 10,000 placements on community employment schemes. That is in addition to the places already lost this year. The report also stated that the possibility was raised in ongoing budgetary discussions that it might be necessary to implement greater reductions in community employment schemes than had already been considered. The Minister of State does not seem to be aware of that internal FÁS review which states that serious cutbacks in the scheme will be announced tomorrow.

It is amazing that Government Members said that even if there were 15 participants in a scheme, seven could do the work now. That suggests that the remaining eight are not participating in the scheme. There cannot be any other interpretation. That is a derogatory statement, particularly given the wonderful work done by everyone who has participated in community employment schemes over the years. What would have happened in many villages and small towns without the contribution of FÁS schemes?

The Government's policy seems to be to ring-fence cutbacks. However, that will exacerbate the level of disadvantage suffered by many rural communities. If we prioritise certain areas for continued support, which we welcome, other areas and rural participants will suffer. The cap announced in April 2000 for participants over 50 years of age means that when the scheme is ended, they will be put back on unemployment assistance. Will the Minister allow a person who costs only an additional €24 per week to be taken off the scheme and condemned to long-term unemployment? The scheme was introduced to take people off the unemployment register. The Minister of State must state clearly and unequivocally his plan for the community employment scheme. Is it his responsibility or is he only relaying the bad news tonight?

I thank the Minister of State for staying here to listen to the debate. It is important for him to listen to the contributions of the Members. Some Ministers do not stay here during our discussions.

Community employment schemes have been effective as a means of helping unemployed people to move into employment in the open labour market. The success rate is obvious, given that 45% of people on such schemes have moved into the labour market. Some community employment schemes have achieved levels of 80% to 100%. Talks about cuts in such a critically important programme are worrying. We must ensure that any cutbacks do not affect those most in need of the support offered by such schemes. Reductions must not be across the board. The schemes which service disadvantaged areas and those unable to participate in the open labour market must not be subject to reductions.

We must remember that the people who have been out of the workforce for years – those with disabilities, young people with mental problems or who live in homes where there are mental problems, ex-offenders, Travellers and drug users who are on detoxification programmes – have benefited most from community employment schemes. We cannot afford to adopt an inflexible approach when responding to the immediate needs of the most vulnerable in our society. There was confusion this evening when Members mentioned people coming from abroad to work here. Some people cannot work from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and cannot take up the full-time jobs which are available. The community employment schemes have helped such people. We are not talking about our 4.5% unemployment rate or the fact that we are bringing people in from abroad because we cannot fill jobs.

It is important to facilitate constructive consultation with the key community groups involved as they are in the best position to advise on the most appropriate way forward. We must recognise the need to sustain critical community services currently funded by community employment schemes, for example, the sustained support for child care services. Such services are essential if the most vulnerable people in society are to be in a position to take up a job, attend further education courses or get education in the first instance. We have a responsibility to ensure that people who are not able to participate in the labour market for one reason or another are not affected by the current correction taking place in the economy. The emphasis needs to be on social capital and the benefits these schemes, when run effectively and productively, have for the communities in which they operate.

The reason I joined the Fianna Fáil Party is, as the Taoiseach has stated many times, that it is a socialist party whose members are drawn from all sections—

Hear, hear.

(Interruptions.)

The Taoiseach constantly makes the point that it is a socialist and inclusive party. Cutting back the schemes for the most vulnerable people in society will send out the wrong signals. It is important the party does not allow this to happen. As an employer who has tried to help people who are long-term unemployed, many of whom have families who cannot get them up for work in the morning, I am aware that many participants in community employment schemes cannot take up full-time jobs. There is total confusion in the community employment sector this evening and the Minister of State is aware of the reason.

The Government decision to establish the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs speaks for itself. It demonstrates that the Fianna Fáil Party understands the importance of community development and an inclusive society. Rural and Gaeltacht affairs need to be part of the mainstream.

A Chathaoirligh, you must forgive me for departing from the motion to address the most interesting remarks made by Senator White at the conclusion of her speech. Whatever she or the Taoiseach in some of his ramblings might believe, the neo-fascist and ultra-right nationalists with which the Fianna Fáil Party shares a group in the European Parliament will be very surprised to learn they are cohabiting with a socialist party. I suggest the Minister for Finance, whom I had the pleasure of shadowing for five years, would be less than delighted with such a description of his party. Perhaps it is one of the secrets behind its consistent success in being all things to all men.

Our record is there.

Senator Brian Hayes stated that the purpose of the motion is to seek clarity. Sadly, the debate has not even come close to delivering clarity. One can do almost anything with statistics. We need some clarity on where we currently stand. We now have roughly 25,000 people on community employment schemes. The Minister of State will say – correctly – that the reduction in the schemes was at least partly presaged in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. However, the PPF envisaged reducing the number to 28,000, some 3,000 higher than the current figure and only did so in the context of a shift of schemes or their participants into the social economy.

The Minister of State provided some interesting statistics on the social economy scheme which has been up and running for about two years. With approximately 2,000 people currently employed under its auspices, it is clear, even in the limited context of the agreement reached as part of the PPF, that the Government has reduced the number of community employment participants by at least 5,000 more than was envisaged when the PPF was negotiated with the social partners.

The context of social partnership is very important. One of the central issues for the social partners, particularly the social and voluntary pillar, was the issue of participation in the workforce. It is a betrayal of the people who entered Government Buildings in good faith to negotiate the agreement that the Government has already cut the number of places by about 6,000 more than was envisaged just a few years ago.

What concerns us this evening and, I assume, provided the motivation for the Fine Gael Party in tabling the motion are recent reports that the Government will go much further in cutting community employment places in the coming 12 months. Senator Burke cited a report from The Irish Times a few weeks ago which in turn cited an internal FÁS report presented to the FÁS board in which a cut of 10,000 places on community employment schemes was recommended. In response to questions in the other House tabled since that report was published, the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Harney, and, to some extent, the Minister of State in her Department, have hidden behind the phrase “greatly exaggerated” to describe the report. She knows what will happen next year because it has already been agreed. I presume she or the Minister for Finance will tell us precisely what has been agreed, either when the Estimates are produced tomorrow or in subsequent interviews. The Minister of State could provide that information to the House now if he has not already told the Fianna Fáil members at their parliamentary meeting earlier and thus help us at least to provide some clarity to the concerned people in schemes throughout the country.

The real problem is uncertainty. People do not know where they stand. They do not know if they will be allowed to roll over and continue in their scheme next year and the people supervising schemes do not know if the scheme will continue. Such uncertainty is very corrosive.

We are right to acknowledge the difficulty at the core of community employment, namely, that it does two separate things. In the first instance, it is a labour market intervention intended to provide training and experience and allow for progression into full-time employment. On the other hand, it is also a means by which voluntary groups provide services to the community. However, whenever we evaluate the schemes, as Deloitte & Touche did a couple of years ago and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment does on a regular basis, we almost always do so purely in terms of its labour market impact. This is a core problem.

The Minister of State used an interesting phrase in his off-the-cuff remarks at the end of his speech. He stated it was appropriate "to copperfasten good community services which can be supported by community employment". This is a critical point. Is it also Government policy? If so, we should examine the scheme and how it operates in that context, which we do not do at present. Virtually every month the Department produces a report evaluating the progress of the employment action plan, which concentrates exclusively on the labour market element of it. Inevitably, these reports give a distorted impression which is unfair to participants in community employment schemes.

Senator White touched on another interesting point when she stated that many people want to be on community employment schemes because their structure suits them. The increasing number of lone parents participating in the schemes shows her statement to be correct. There is a view, however, that this should not be the case. I do not hold to this view because we should be endeavouring to encourage lone parents to participate in training in order to progress into full-time employment.

Many participants, particularly lone parents, do not progress, possibly because some of them are happy to work part-time and retain their benefits. Others, however, would choose full-time employment but cannot do so, principally due to the absence of child care. If the Minister wants to reduce the numbers of lone parents on community employment schemes, a policy with which I would have no objection in principle, she can only do so in the context of providing specific, direct support for people currently on the schemes. This could be done in a number of ways, such as providing direct subsidies for child care costs to lone parents coming off community employment schemes. The issue can only be addressed if the Government acknowledges the centrality of the child care issue in dealing with lone parents.

I listened to Senator Leyden assert that we cannot live beyond our means. He spoke as the Department of Finance would wish him to, namely, in terms of money and cost cutting. It is absolutely clear that if you cut the number of places on the schemes many of those people will end up still drawing the unemployment benefit. The saving to the State will therefore be minimal or non-existent.

I strongly endorse the Fine Gael motion this evening and I am sorry the Minister of State did not feel able to describe the number of people to whom he has confided what the number of people on community employment next year will be. An appreciation of the scheme, its participants and their needs has to be central to how we deal with this issue.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I am delighted to speak in favour of the amendment to the motion and to further support those Members who have commended the contribution the community employment programme has made in a huge number of areas.

The primary purpose of community employment was to provide a transitional programme of work experience and training for the long-term unemployed. The important word there is "transitional". The vast majority of the relevant concerned bodies, including Dublin inner city partnership and other social partners, accept that the community employment programme was originally designed for a time when there was large-scale long-term unemployment. Needs are now different and this programme must be developed and adapted. Given the significant reduction in the numbers of long-term unemployed, which now stands at 1.2% of the labour force, and the fact that 36,000 work permits were issued last year with the prospect of more being made available this year, changes must be made. FÁS is undertaking a full review of all the employment and training support services with a view to finding the most cost-effective way of enhancing the existing programme while maintaining the excellent service which has been provided to many community and social groups.

I am delighted to see the prioritising of certain essential areas. The 800 community employment places currently provided under the national drugs strategy action plan are ring-fenced and no reduction will be made, as is the case with the estimated 1,450 community employment places which provide child care services as part of the process of assisting unemployed parents to access labour market services. In addition, community employment schemes in RAPID areas, which account for 4,020 places, are prioritised to be maintained. Community employment places in the health sector, which include personal assistant services, are being maintained at the start of year level to ensure continuity of delivery.

Under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, the standing committee on the labour market is in the process of reviewing active labour market programmes which will allow a large selection of interested parties, including representatives from the community pillar, employers, trade unions and State agencies, to have an input into how all programmes can be adapted and improved. It is generally accepted that the vast majority of schemes have provided invaluable services in all areas of the community from schools to sports clubs and from heritage and culture to tourism and the environment. In my own area I have seen various schemes grow to become an established part of the community, particularly in areas such as child care, drug abuse prevention programmes and adult education.

While a large percentage of these schemes are successful and productive, a certain number are over-subscribed and have a lesser impact in the areas they are targeted at. There is scope for streamlining and refocusing of some such projects, while others need to be continued and supported to the fullest extent. One that comes to mind immediately is a meals service provided in a school in Rutland Street, which is about 500 yards from where Senator Norris's project is based. This service is essential to providing young children with breakfast in the north-east inner city.

There are concerns about the effects of streamlining some of the projects and I take Senator White's point about the hours which suit many participants. There are questions about the retention of some of the benefits which lone parents have access to and these are being tackled constantly. An excellent example is the social economy programme. Out of 773 applications, 600 have been approved and 320 enterprises have been approved for full start-up grant support, representing a commitment to approximately 2000 grant supported employees. The cost over the last 18 months to two years has been €14 million, which is equal to 5,000 community employment places plus extra support services. These imaginative initiatives are locally based, a prime example being a project in progress in Darndale which has proved a huge success. The projects are being reviewed on an ongoing basis to ascertain their effectiveness, which is an excellent idea.

In line with the Government's outstanding record in the area of social inclusion, every effort will be made to continue to support those vulnerable and marginalised sections of our communities and to provide them with every opportunity to improve their prospects in education, training and employment. We must strike a balance between social and economic objectives and have the flexibility to take account of the needs of participants relative to their personal circumstances. Such a balance is possible. Studies in other EU countries have shown that intensive targeting of disadvantaged areas for investment is one way of tackling problems and over the last six to seven years it has proved immensely successfully, particularly in the north-east inner city which has seen huge improvements. The communities benefit, as does the country as a whole.

Individuals who find themselves marginalised for whatever reason have to be given support and hope. A State's strength is judged by the manner in which it treats its weakest citizens. We will continue with the work of recent years to improve the programmes and supports which are in place. I commend the Minister of State on his efforts thus far.

I wish to share time with Senator John Paul Phelan. I welcome the Minister of State to the House and support the motion and the contributions of my colleagues regarding the continuation of the community employment schemes as outlined in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.

The Minister of State stated that there were 30,809 participants in community employment schemes, something that was shouted from the rooftops in the run up to the general election. I am disappointed that the Government is planning a huge cut in the number of places because the removal of community employment for the long-term unemployed will have very serious consequences. The electorate was misled on this issue as well as many others before the election and there have been cuts in education, health and the disabled person's grant, to name a few.

These schemes provide much needed services to their communities and their environment, supporting development associations, community groups, sporting organisations, health care facilities and youth groups in many parishes. More importantly, people will be displaced due to the cutbacks in these schemes and, owing to the mismanagement by the Government of the economy, many will not be able to find work on the open market.

Will the Minister of State tell the House if the Government will provide the services currently made available by the schemes if community employment is cut back? How are the savings made to be used? Will the money go to pay more spin doctors or to educate a large number of long-term unemployed and part-time working mothers to enable them to find jobs? The schemes are undertaken in communities where alternative sources of suitable employment are not available. Can the Minister of State explain how the people who have been working on such schemes for a number of years are to be helped to find work, or is it the case that they are to return to the dole queue? Has any research been carried out to see what happens to people after they finish working on community employment schemes to see if they find jobs?

If those participating in community employment schemes begin claiming social welfare again, the Government will only be transferring costs from one Department to another. This is bureaucracy at its worst. Major savings will not be made at a time when much needed services in local communities have been lost and particularly when disadvantaged areas require the kind of additional investment that community employment schemes provide for those who live in such areas.

I call on the Government parties to be honest and truthful with the electorate and not allow the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Harney, or the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, to introduce savage cuts to this successful and important scheme. I plead with the Minister of State to give the long-term unemployed and people with disabilities the opportunity to gain access to employment by allowing the scheme to continue to operate at its current level.

I thank Senator Bannon for sharing time and welcome the Minister of State. I agree with Senator White that it is good that he has remained in the Chamber for the duration of the debate on this motion, even though I was somewhat disappointed with his contribution.

I wish to make a confession. I am not a socialist, never have been and never intend to be. I do not believe one has to be a socialist to have respect for what has been achieved by community employment schemes. I was amazed by some of the contributions by Senators on the other side of the House, some of whom, as we were informed in what was a revelation to me, are socialists. They seem to hold the view that social employment schemes should be cut back, but they have no opinion about the impact this will have on the voluntary sector in particular. However, a number of them pointed out projects that will be directly affected if the community employment scheme is cut back.

There are two distinct aspects of the community employment scheme which was initially set up as a means of reintroducing long-term unemployed persons into the workforce. Senators on all sides are involved in different community groups and aware that these groups have become dependent on community employment schemes in order to remain active.

I agree with Senator Norris's comments about volunteering. It is a sad fact that volunteering is becoming less of a phenomenon in modern Ireland. In the past community groups have relied heavily on volunteers. However, the country's economic success means that there are far fewer unemployed persons than there were 15 years ago and, consequently, people have less time to devote to volunteering. They are obliged to get up two hours before work and must then sit in their cars in traffic before finally reaching their place of employment. When they finish work, they must collect their children and sit for a further two hours in traffic before they reach home. By the time they get home, they really do not have the energy to commit to local community groups as they did in the past. That is the nub of the problem when it comes to reductions in the community employment scheme.

I agree with Senator McDowell who emphasised what the Minister of State had said about the need to retain good community services into the future and to support them with the community employment scheme. I have a difficulty in terms of the criteria the Minister of State might use to define a good community scheme and how such services could continue to be supported by the community employment scheme.

The Minister of State outlined a number of areas in the review process to which he is going to give particular attention. I suppose he supports the idea, but he did not specifically refer to disabled people. There are a number of people who, through no fault of their own, are not suited to full-time, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. employment.

I did mention the disabled.

Fair enough. The community employment scheme has been instrumental in enabling them to gain employment and become integrated into the workforce. It is important that this continues.

I was extremely surprised by what Senator Leyden said about living in the real world. I live in the real world in south County Kilkenny and have received several representations from people who are concerned about reductions in the community employment scheme. I spoke to one woman who finished school at 16 years of age and began work on a community employment scheme when she was 19. She had not completed her leaving certificate and had no qualifications from secondary school. However, she was interested in computers and proceeded to take up a place on a community employment scheme as a teacher's aid in a school in Dublin. When she had completed the scheme, she went on to do her leaving certificate and then attended teacher training college. She has now returned to the school in which she was a teacher's aid a few years ago as a junior infants' teacher. That speaks volumes about the role the community employment scheme has played.

I support the motion in the name of Senator Coghlan. I urge the Minister of State not to slash the numbers involved in community employment schemes.

I wish to refer to a number of points raised by other Senators. My presence in the House is evidence that there is now one less spin doctor in another place, although I never quite saw myself in that light. I belong to the non-doctrinaire socialist wing of the Fianna Fáil Party that believes, as do most of us, in both a dynamic economy and a caring society.

More socialists.

A true socialist.

This is an important scheme and the Minister of State provided a good exposition of his approach and that of the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party to it. He indicated that he fully understood the importance of the scheme, the problems with it and the reforms that needed to be made. Some years ago when unemployment figures were quite high, the scheme performed an important role in respect of young people who, in many instances, were not able to obtain full-time or even part-time jobs. One is glad to state almost all of those who were in that position eight to 12 years ago are in full-time employment which is probably a tribute to the scheme.

There is no doubt that the scheme has been extremely valuable to many communities. I am a trustee of an antiquarian library in Cashel which, effectively, has been kept in operation by FÁS workers. There are myriad schemes of great value in County Tipperary which are managed by FÁS. These range from the upkeep of cemeteries and clubs, providing assistance with a recently opened arts and heritage centre, etc. Members could cite many examples of such projects. Some of the positions on community employment schemes can be converted into full-time jobs – as appears to be the case in the education sector – which is all to the good. This is not just valuable from the point of view of the people concerned, it is also valuable for communities.

I do not know how many buildings I have visited, some of a very high architectural quality with ceilings almost as good as that in this Chamber, which have been restored by highly skilled FÁS workers who have made a tremendous contribution to the country. A huge vacuum would be created if they were let go and not replaced.

One of the most memorable moments in the election campaign came when I visited the old and rubble-strewn workhouse in Tipperary which, like all Victorian buildings, is an extremely solid structure and is being refurbished for use as social housing. Most of those employed are in their fifties and highly skilled building workers. I got up on some of the rubble and addressed 15 of them who were very concerned about their future. Older people do not have the same opportunities in the modern economy as the rest of us. They are good at what they do but they might not necessarily have the type of education required for modern, high-tech work. Special provision needs to be made for people of that age group because they want to continue to be useful to society. They are useful to society and a special place ought to be provided in the reforms for people in that category. In that way, we can all fulfil our mission in both a socially caring and economically useful manner.

I wish to share my time with Senators Feighan and Tuffy.

Is that agreed? Agreed. The Senator has three minutes.

I thank the Minister, Deputy Fahey, for remaining so long in the House tonight. The work being done in the community by people on FÁS and community employment schemes is immeasurable. The Minister was given many examples of that work but I do not intend to go over that area again. I live in the Dublin west area, a large part of which is also a RAPID area, and people participating in the community employment schemes are extremely concerned that they will lose their jobs. Those in the community are also concerned because if these individuals lose their jobs, services to the community will be lost. A special case has to be made for the disadvantaged areas, and particularly the RAPID areas. I ask the Minister to examine the schemes in the Blanchardstown-Mulhuddart area to ensure they are not lost because that would be devastating for our community.

I am happy that the Minister intends to prioritise child care and personal assistants places but I spoke to a person in the Blanchardstown area partnership today who expressed concern that all the places in the five crèches in the Mulhuddart area are not guaranteed. There are ten to 15 places in each of those five crèches and it is vital that they are not affected because we are trying to encourage people back to work by providing child care places for them. If we lose any of those places, parents will be unable to go out to work.

The Minister said that the personal assistants places will not be affected but the Centre for Independent Living in Blanchardstown, which has branches in other areas also, has been told that it is being mainstreamed, which is welcome, but it has not got the go ahead from the health board. That is a cause of great concern both for the workers and, more importantly, the people they are assisting. I ask the Minister to examine that case.

Some of the community employment schemes are being transferred to the social economy programme, and FÁS has told us that it is freezing all programmes for the coming year. I ask the Minister to respond to that. Is it true that FÁS is freezing all programmes in the social economy programme for next year because, if that happens, further places will be lost?

I will be brief because I want to share my time with Senator Tuffy, my socialist colleague.

Perish the thought.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey. Fifteen years ago, as secretary of a local soccer club in Boyle, I came to this House to meet the Minister who was very courteous. He was also very generous in that he gave us a sports grant which enabled us to construct football pitches, dressing rooms, etc. That grant helped our football club but the club would not have survived over the past ten years without the various community employment and FÁS schemes, and those schemes are mirrored throughout the country in terms of football pitches, community centres, etc. They have provided many benefits including health care assistants, community care staff, child care places, etc. They have also helped people to obtain full employment.

To say these schemes are not important is pure folly. Senator Leyden is a good friend of mine but he knows that the people on the ground in Boyle, County Roscommon, do not agree that a reduction in these schemes will benefit rural Ireland. Senator White articulated the point with fairness and compassion. That should be the approach to the people in disadvantaged areas.

A man who is participating in these schemes came to see me because he was very concerned. He told me they provided him with a sense of pride and self-confidence. People in Boyle, a town bordering rural Ireland, are coming to see me with a view to getting on these schemes. I appeal to the Minister to keep these schemes in operation because they are vital to the viability of all rural areas.

Having listened to the comments made by Senator Mansergh, perhaps the Labour Party should start a recruitment drive for new members in the Seanad.

I support the Fine Gael motion and condemn the cutbacks that have already taken place, including those in my own community in Lucan and Clondalkin. I agree with the view that the cutbacks will have a detrimental effect on the employment prospects of lone parents, people with disabilities and older people who could participate in these schemes. It is difficult for the many people concerned to obtain mainstream employment. There is also the fact that these schemes operate in the local community and the type of work they provide is attractive because it does not involve travelling, which is important in terms of encouraging people back into the workforce.

The cutbacks have already resulted in a terrible loss to the community in terms of the provision of employment, the self-esteem of those participating in them and the services provided. Community centres in my local area have been affected and the community council's tidy towns scheme has been cut while the jobs situation is less certain. Instead of increases in funding we are experiencing cutbacks in local government services and it is not feasible for much of the work done to be taken up by the social economy programme.

I agree with the prioritising of schemes in RAPID areas but my own area of Lucan, which is a largely new community, needs these types of schemes to provide local services and build up the community in the area.

I congratulate Senator Coghlan on bringing forward this timely and apt motion on behalf of Fine Gael. Let us talk with a degree of reality. I met with 16 supervisors in Donegal yesterday and they were not talking about cutbacks. They were talking about redundancies. That is the feeling on the ground in Donegal. These supervisors, whom we have failed to mention in the debate, have been downtrodden for the past ten years. They are on one year contracts and they are now talking about redundancies. That is a disgrace.

Senator Feighan used the word "folly". It was folly for the Government not to have given a commitment to such schemes during the past five years. Has it forgotten what they involve? Community employment schemes are not about taking people off the live register, but about giving confidence to people with low levels of self-esteem, thus empowering them to work part-time or full-time.

Senator White hit the nail on the head and, although she said her party was not part of this ideal, will be more than welcome if she wants to follow our ideals. Members on the Fianna Fáil benches should leave politics out of it, follow their consciences and vote for Senator Coghlan's motion.

I do not mind being parochial when talking about County Donegal because it has a higher than average unemployment rate. It should, therefore, be an exception. I am talking passionately about this subject because six years ago I was a FÁS supervisor. For a year 15 people participated in the scheme for which I was responsible, of which eight are now in full-time employment and one is a FÁS supervisor.

Community employment is about allowing those whose self-esteem has been damaged by our school system, by the community or in their family lives to make progress. By introducing reductions, however, the Government has not taken into consideration the role of such schemes. It is not good enough for the Minister of State to say he is not talking about reductions. We should be discussing increases in the schemes whose value is immeasurable. This is not a question of getting people off the dole to reduce the unemployment statistics, but about giving them a second chance at life through training. Such people may have been damaged through bullying at school or in their own families and deserve another chance. I beseech Fianna Fáil Senators to follow their consciences and vote with us.

Amendment put.

Bohan, Eddie.Brady, Cyprian.Brennan, Michael.Callanan, Peter.Cox, Margaret.Daly, Brendan.Dardis, John.Dooley, Timmy.Fitzgerald, Liam.Glynn, Camillus.Hanafin, John.Kenneally, Brendan.Kett, Tony.Kitt, Michael P.Leyden, Terry.

Lydon, Don.MacSharry, Marc.Mansergh, Martin.Minihan, John.Morrissey, Tom.Moylan, Pat.O'Brien, Francis.O'Rourke, Mary.Ó Murchú, Labhrás.Ormonde, Ann.Phelan, Kieran.Scanlon, Eamon.Walsh, Jim.Walsh, Kate.White, Mary M.

Níl

Bannon, James.Bradford, Paul.Burke, Paddy.Burke, Ulick.Coghlan, Paul.Coonan, Noel.Cummins, Maurice.Feighan, Frank.Finucane, Michael.Hayes, Brian.Higgins, Jim.

McCarthy, Michael.McDowell, Derek.McHugh, Joe.Norris, David.O'Meara, Kathleen.O'Toole, Joe.Phelan, John.Ryan, Brendan.Terry, Sheila.Tuffy, Joanna.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Minihan and Moylan; Níl, Senators U. Burke and Terry.
Amendment declared carried.
Motion, as amended, put and declared carried.
Top
Share