Skip to main content
Normal View

Community Employment Schemes

Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 26 January 2012

Thursday, 26 January 2012

Questions (3, 4)

Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Question:

2Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Social Protection the reason she did not conduct a review of community employment schemes prior to her decision to cut the training and materials budgets by two thirds; and if she will reinstate the budgets at 2011 levels. [4539/12]

View answer

Barry Cowen

Question:

4Deputy Barry Cowen asked the Minister for Social Protection the source of the funds available to keep community employment schemes open; the resources and funds she will be diverting from her projected 2012 budget to ensure that CE schemes remain operative; if this commitment stands after March when the two reviews she has ordered are complete; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [4538/12]

View answer

Oral answers (12 contributions)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 and 4 together.

Community employment, CE, is a valuable resource in the provision of a range of services to communities. However, it is acknowledged that its effectiveness in terms of labour market progression is somewhat limited. The report, Supports and Services for Unemployed Jobseekers: Challenges and Opportunities in a Time of Recession, published in August 2011 by the National Economic and Social Council, was critical in terms of labour market progression. The report, What Can Active Labour Market Policies Do?, published by the ESRI in November 2011, also noted that previous studies had determined that CE was not associated with increased post-programme employment chances and that previous participation in a CE scheme was associated sometimes with an increased risk of long-term unemployment.

The budget for CE for 2012 is approximately €315 million. The massive increase in unemployment requires that as many places as possible are open to a broader range of jobseekers. The reduction in training and employment grants was implemented in the context of the overarching need to ensure that all Exchequer expenditure is targeted appropriately, which I consider to be a reasonable objective. Moreover, the total number of CE places available and the number of CE supervisors are not affected. At present, there are approximately 1,400 CE supervisors and more than 22,000 CE places.

I have directed that a review of the financial resources of individual schemes be completed by the end of March. The purpose of the review is to examine the income and funding of sponsoring organisations in terms of their ability to continue to deliver the programme. As part of the review, alternative sources of support will be examined, particularly the level of funding from other State agencies. The review also will seek to establish whether income is generated by scheme activity and the potential for utilisation of these funds to cover project costs. The outcome of each review will provide a clear picture of the core funding required for each CE scheme. This will assist my Department in ensuring a fair distribution of the funding available for these schemes.

I have given assurances to community and voluntary organisations that no CE scheme will be forced to close as a result of the reductions in training and material grants, pending the completion of this review at the end of March. This guarantee will be funded by my Department from its 2012 allocation. In parallel, my Department is also undertaking a policy review of all employment support programmes under its aegis. CE is being considered as part of this review and stakeholders will be consulted as part of this review process. I expect to have this review in the first quarter of this year. These reports at both the individual CE scheme level and at the macro level will provide good evidence on which to base future policy. The outcome of the review will form part of the report to the troika.

I again assure the House of my full appreciation of the value of CE schemes locally. The focus now is on achieving improved outcomes both in terms of service provided at local level and job progression for CE participants themselves.

Is the Minister aware the cut of 66%, on which she decided in respect of the CE training and materials grant, will decimate community employment schemes and projects as well as those communities which depend on such schemes? I note the Minister has acknowledged this dependence on many schemes. Does the Minister agree the cut actually was made earlier this month? Notwithstanding her announcement of a review before Christmas that led many of those concerned to believe they had been saved from a cut, does she agree this is not the case? Does the Minister accept she announced the review and misled the public and the CE schemes simply to get her own party's backbenchers off her case?

In the budget, she announced a cut to the community employment programme of €41.5 million and has determined to make a cut of approximately €27.5 million to the training and materials funding. In essence, she already has decided the outcome of the review and the reply she has just given appears to endorse this suggestion. Has she already decided the outcome of the review and its purpose? Does the Minister agree she is conducting a review after the fact and by so doing, she is demonstrating she did not bother to assess the cut's impact when deciding to make it in the first instance? Does she agree that had she sought it, most of the material to which she has referred already is in the possession of the Department and the review could have been carried out without implementing a cut of the scale announced?

There is no shortage of reviews of community employment, of which there have been a great many right up to the time when community employment schemes joined my Department. They came under its aegis on 1 January, or in practice on 4 January, together with approximately 700 staff who previously had worked in the employment services side of FÁS and the administration of community employment schemes. On foot of the community employment schemes coming under the aegis of the Department of Social Protection and given that Department's long commitment to people who are unemployed, I am convinced that when Members again discuss this issue in eight or nine months time, it will be evident how much progress has been made.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh referred to reviews. All of the reviews, both national and international, have been highly critical of the lack of progression for people on CE schemes into employment. It must be remembered that these schemes are described as labour market schemes. Deputies are aware that CE schemes are critically important to many areas throughout the country in the context of the delivery of local services. The first of the two reviews that are under way is considering matters revolving around the financial facts and figures relating to CE schemes. It would be very odd if, on assuming responsibility for these schemes, the Department of Social Protection did not seek an analysis of the very large spend relating to them. This year, we will be spending approximately €315 million on CE schemes. In total, we will be spending over €1 billion in respect of employment support schemes, some of which originated with FÁS and others, such as the back to education allowance scheme, which have always been funded by my Department. We are considering the position with regard to all of these schemes. I am of the view that many Deputies would be extremely disappointed if we did not engage in an investigation of the funding relating to them.

It was on my watch that the decision was made to move the CE schemes and the employment support schemes relating to FÁS within the Department's remit. That was a good decision and, as a result of it, the Minister has been dealt a very good hand of cards because she has responsibility for the CE schemes, the community services programme and various other schemes.

In the context of training, those who are over 55 are allowed to remain on the schemes but I do not see the point in people engaging in training year after year. This is one of the changes I considered when I was in office and it is the reason the Tús programme exists. Basically, the line of progression was seen to be from CE schemes into Tús. It is my opinion that a mistake was made when the money relating to materials was cut. Introducing an across-the-board reduction in respect of training was also a mistake. I put it to the Minister that there are other savings which could have been made. Does she agree that considerable savings could be made by using the Tús model because this would mean there would be no need to have 400 separate companies paying fees to 400 sets of auditors or to have 400 individuals responsible for making up wages each week? The 53 companies operating under the Tús programme have available to them all the support they require and the wages relating to all of them are made up in Clifden, County Galway, each week. Perhaps the wages for the CE schemes could also be made up at this location?

Considerable savings could be made if the type of rational approach I am advocating were adopted. There is always a great deal of discussion with regard to quangos. Effectively, the CE schemes have given rise to the creation of 400 unnecessary quangos. Would it be possible to make further significant savings if, as is the case with Tús, a single insurance policy applied in respect of the CE schemes?

Under the CE structure, there are over 1,000 voluntary companies which are run by voluntary boards. The participation of the latter is really important. The fact that these 1,000 companies are limited by guarantee gives rise to major costs. I have seen some preliminary indications that in many areas the cost of an audit for some of these extremely small entities is between €1,800 and €2,000. That is the amount being charged and these are not even full audits. The insurance costs are also quite high. These are two areas in respect of which savings can be made.

What about my suggestion on wages?

I accept what the Deputy said and I would welcome it if the people in Clifden were prepared to take on more work.

As already intimated, there are substantial savings to be made. During the period of the review - the other purpose of which is to collect data - I want to encourage the CE schemes to co-operate with the former regional and local management of FÁS who are now civil servants working for the Department of Social Protection and supply the data and information that is required. A number of schemes have multiple sources of funding. Some may be in receipt of funding from my Department and the Departments of Children and Youth Affairs and Health, while others may be sponsored by local authorities. There is a need to obtain a reliable picture in respect of the different sources of funding. Some CE schemes - I accept it is not a huge number - have significant income-earning abilities. We want to target the funding at the schemes which are in most need of it. I would appreciate the support of Deputies while the review is ongoing. I urge them to encourage those who operate the schemes to remain in close communication with the officials who have been administering them.

The Minister referred to the reviews, which discovered that there was limited progression. If the level of progression is so low, does she not accept that it is illogical to reduce the training and materials grants? The training grant is particularly important because it is the only hope in the context of ensuring that people are trained. Does she agree that there can be very little progression if there are no jobs? Would the Minister not delay the budget cut pending the outcome of the reviews? As she stated, many similar reviews are sitting on shelves. If some of the recommendations they contain had been implemented or if some of the data already available within the Department had been used, those who operate the CE schemes would not be obliged to go cap in hand to the Department in order to obtain money to allow them to try to survive for the next couple of months. That they are being obliged to approach the Department is going to create another bureaucratic nightmare for it.

Does the Minister agree that, in terms of its administration, Tús is a streamlined version of a CE scheme?

It is a one-year CE scheme.

It was my intention, had I remained in office, that it would not be a one-year scheme. The Department of Finance made a demand in that regard and as the Minister is aware, the Government of which I was a member was running out of time. Tús is very streamlined in its operation and this means that money is freed up for the purpose of providing people with employment.

Does the Minister agree that there are people who will never obtain employment in the open labour market? People have a right to work and to make a contribution. Does the Minister further agree that many services in this country would fall apart if CE schemes did not exist? For some people, progression is not a realistic option. Unlike Deputy Ó Snodaigh, I believe that after a certain time people who have been undergoing training and who are unlikely to emerge from the system want what they are doing to be classed as a job rather than as a training scheme. If I had remained in office, it had been my intention - as is the case with the RSS, in respect of which time limits do not apply - that people who complete their involvement in community employment and who are unlikely to emerge from the system should move to the Tús programme and continue working on it until they obtain alternative employment.

Does the Minister agree that it is heartbreaking for those who are unemployed to be thrown off FÁS schemes, having been on them for four or five years, and removed from the system? Would it not be ideal if everybody who is unemployed had the option to remain on a work scheme on a continuous basis and as long as he or she is available for work when he or she finishes his or her training scheme? Some of the great gurus in the system utter all sorts of nonsense with regard to people seeking work. There are 450,000 people on the live register and we know they would start work tomorrow if they were offered the opportunity.

There are three elements to the reviews. The first relates to identifying the services that are being delivered to communities. Like other Deputies, I recognise the importance of such services. I will not describe those services in detail but I am referring, for example, to meals on wheels, etc., which are extremely important to people in both urban and rural areas. The second element contemplated by the reviews relates to progression. There may be an issue in the context of the description of the schemes, which implies that they will lead directly to employment. As a result of this, our interlocutors from the troika want to examine the position with regard to progression. In respect of certain schemes, opportunities for progression can be limited. The third element is value for money. As stated earlier, there are up to 1,000 voluntary companies and this is a factor.

Deputy Ó Cuív referred to Tús. When I became Minister in March, although the Tús scheme was provided for, there was nobody on it. I spent a lot of time in May and June getting the scheme off the ground. As Deputy Ó Cuív says, the companies that got involved have been very productive. At the end of December, there were around 2,300 people on Tús and over 4,000 people on JobBridge. We have had almost an extra 7,000 opportunities, with more on offer, between those two schemes. It is critical that in the review of the CE, we get more opportunities for more people to have an option. That could be education, training, work on a CE scheme or work with JobBridge.

As Deputy Ó Snodaigh said, the unemployment situation is extremely difficult. So many people want an opportunity. There are many men in their 20s to their 50s who are now coming into long-term unemployment, and huge numbers of them want an opportunity to participate in the scheme. It behoves me as a Minister to create opportunities for people like that who have not so far had an opportunity, and I am determined to do that.

Top
Share