Vol. 495 No. 7
48 Mr. Broughan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment her intended response to the recent review of the community employment programme by consultants (details supplied), in particular to the recommendation centred on reducing the scheme to a level of 28,000 to 30,000; and the impact this will have on the Partnership 2000 objective of increasing community employment to 49,000. [21123/98]
49 Mrs. Owen asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the actions, if any, she will take on the report (details supplied) into community employment schemes; if her attention has been drawn to the extreme concern being expressed by many employers and voluntary organisations who fear that the loss of community employment work or workers will be very detrimental to their organisations; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [21878/98]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 48 and 49 together.
As part of a package of proposals aimed at delivering better quality supports to long-term unemployed and socially excluded persons, the Deloitte and Touche report proposed that of the 41,000 places currently provided for on community employment schemes, the resources currently being used for 6,000 to 8,000 places would be better invested in places on other labour market programmes with better employment outcomes for participants than community employment has and on strengthening the training element in the remaining substantial number of community employment places.
While recognising the value of supports that community employment delivers, the review poses the question as to whether it is the most effective means of delivering appropriate supports to the voluntary and community sector. The introduction of the dedicated social economy programme, for example, is a recognition that more flexibility and continuity in support than community employment provides is desirable.
Before changing the criteria for participation in community employment, I intend to initiate full consultation with the social partners. I stress that there is no threat to the continued existence of community employment which is a valuable programme for many persons. I intend to discuss future approaches to such supports with all Ministers concerned before bringing forward proposals to amend community employment programmes. I have already placed a copy of the report in the Library.
I thank the Minister for her reply. Does she not realise she has caused panic and consternation among voluntary groups throughout the country? I am a director of a number of community groups in my constituency and I have received more than 20 applications for such schemes. This morning I received a letter from the director——
The Deputy cannot quote letters at Question Time.
It was a letter similar to those which other Members have received in recent weeks about community employment workers, such as those in cre ches, nursery schools, resource centres, youth centres and churches. People are concerned because of the Minister's track record and her views on the role of single parents in the economy, in community employment and in general community development.
Perhaps the Minister could comment on the fact that when the Deloitte & Touche report was completed, she left it to her civil servants to present. She did not present it or say what she would do with it. That happened on 2 October. Now a month later there is consternation and panic in the community because people feel that the important experience and training which people gained over the past four or five years will not be used.
Will we not lose a quarter, if not more, of these places? Partnership 2000 stated that there would be 50,000 community employment places or places in the social economy. The Minister is now proposing to give us 30,000 places, which is a reduction of 40 per cent.
What caused panic was the partisan view put on the report by people like the Deputy. The report was made by Deloitte & Touche. It was leaked a day in advance.
The Minister cannot blame the Opposition for that.
The reason I did not present it was that I had to go abroad on the Thursday morning in question for a family funeral. I apologise for that.
The report was produced under the strategic management initiative. It is an independent, not a Government report. I made it clear that the suggestions for change — there are some worthy ones — should at least be considered and discussed with the social partners. I will do that as quickly as possible before we change any criteria.
I have already said that community employment has a valuable role to play. Labour market conditions have changed substantially since Partnership 2000 was first negotiated. Deputy Broughan was critical of my employment action plan. However, it is working like a dream after the first month. Perhaps the Deputy could have an open mind about some things. We might not give each other the benefit of considering other people's proposals during elections, but there are things which need to be changed.
One of the recommendations of that report is that there should be a bigger training element and that we should provide more job orientated training programmes rather than community employment for younger people under 25 years of age. We should discuss that. I have an open mind about what decisions we might make. I gave the Deputy a commitment on a previous occasion on this matter. The report was produced under the strategic management initiative. It is right that we should publish and debate it and that those who have an interest, particularly the social partners, should be involved in any discussions on it.
The fourth pillar came up recently with a good suggestion on the social economy. It suggested that at least 5,000 community employment places should be switched from community employment to a dedicated social economy. There are possibilities we should explore because there is a role for the social economy. Notwithstanding the huge success of the economy, there are a number of activities which could not be considered commercial by any stretch of the imagination. Much worthwhile activity, experience and training can be given to people who participate in the social economy. We should look at that in addition to the other suggestions in that report.
I thank the Minister for her reply. I am concerned about a number of recommendations in this report. I welcome the Minister's statement that she will discuss the matter with the social partners. However, the people affected by this report will not be at the table when the Minister is discussing it with them.
I remind the Minister of her public antipathy to lone parents. What is her view of the recommendation that lone parents should be denied the opportunity to become involved in community employment schemes? Is she not aware that many lone parents can only work on community employment schemes because of family commitments and that such schemes are targeted to suit lone parents who have responsibility for rearing their children?
What is the Minister's view of the recommendation that community employment schemes will be phased out of public services? Is the Minister aware, for example, that almost every school in the country has a community employment scheme in order to have a secretary or caretaker? Can she assure the House that that sector will not be prevented from having the opportunity to become involved in community employment schemes? Schools could not function without the fine work of these people. On Sunday I was told that the 59 year old caretaker in Corduff National School in my constituency has finished his three years placement on such a scheme. He wants to continue working but he cannot do so.
Does the Minister agree that people over 35 years of age who are in community employment schemes should be considered for a second period of three years as their age is often against them for retraining or getting another job? That is one of the few recommendations in this report with which I agree.
The report does not suggest denying lone parents or single mothers community employment. The report states that it is too early to make any assessment on lone parents. The Deputy must not have read the report.
It states that.
It states that when we have a couple more years experience, we should look at the impact of community employment on lone parents. It makes no recommendation on lone parents.
Flexibility is the key. Cut-off targets, whether age or number of years, can often be severe and impact adversely on many people who could otherwise access opportunity. As Deputy Owen said, some might not have an opportunity to get a job in the labour market. I recognise the role community employment schemes play for schools and other voluntary bodies. That is one of the considerations we must take on board when developing the social economy model, where there are opportunities to develop it, and the voluntary area, including the education sector.
We need to see community employment for what it is. It is to give worthwhile experience to a group of people who might not otherwise be able to access full training, educational opportunities or a job. It is a stepping stone to a better opportunity for the majority. It also makes a valuable contribution to the community. It is a question of keeping what is best about it, improving it where it needs to be improved and learning from experience. We need to do this with all schemes. We invest more than £300 million per year in community employment. It is a large sum of money which delivers enormous benefits. If we can deliver more benefits, we should do so.
Six per cent of the 41,000 people on community employment schemes are disabled, compared to one per cent in 1994. This is an area of great concern.
Will the Deputy ask a question?
Since we have not delivered on the 3 per cent placement of the disabled in the public sector, the Minister has a responsibility to deliver on this in community employment.
The Minister was rightly criticised by members of ICTU the day this report was published. She now has an obligation to meet them quickly and decide what she will do. It is her responsibility to remove the panic and fear groups feel about what will happen to this valuable programme.
Will the Minister confirm that on page 13 of the Deloitte & Touche report, it states: "We recommend that lone parents under the age of 25 years should not be eligible for CE schemes." Why is the Minister trying to pretend she has not recommended that lone parents under the age of 25 years should no longer be eligible for CE schemes?
Deputy Broughan should know I am criticised at least once every day. People may have been critical because the report was leaked to people, such as the Deputy, who decided to stir it up. When the report was issued a different attitude was taken.
In response to Deputy Owen, the report discusses everyone under the age of 25 years, not lone parents specifically. The report states that everyone under 25 years should get training instead of community employment and we should enhance the training and certification of what they do. The report did not state that one must participate in community employment or do nothing.
I did not say that.
The report was specific as regards lone parents and stated it was too early and there was not enough data to do any serious analysis.
What about the disabled?
The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment will shortly take over responsibility for the training of those with disabilities and negotiations are under way with the Department of Health and Children in this area. I agree that access of those with disabilities to community employment has been low for a host of reasons. More opportunities do and should exist for the disabled to access community employment.
