I propose to take Questions Nos. 85 and 86 together.
In accordance with the Government's decision in 1999 to restructure community employment, CE, 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 PPF contains a commitment to reduce overall place numbers on CE to 28,000 by 2003 through a reallocation of funding equivalent to 5,000 places to the social economy, together with the reduction of 4,500 places required by the Government's decision of 21 July 1999.
The mainstreaming of school services currently under way and the proposed mainstreaming of other essential services, including the health and environmental sectors, will further reduce the numbers employed on the programme. This has been confirmed by my Department in detail on a number of occasions in the context of discussions with the social partners on the PPF standing committee on labour market matters. I have also made this position clear in my responses to a number of previous parliamentary questions on the restructuring of CE.
There were 30,809 participants on CE at the beginning of 2002 and it is anticipated that the year-end participation rate will be in the region of 24,000 to 25,000 places depending on the rate of inflows and outflows on the scheme. This phased reduction in place numbers is part of a strategic shift in policy in favour of greater investment in training and other supports, for example, social economy and the new high supports process, which I will launch shortly.
I am fully aware of the concerns of sponsors from community organisations regarding the implications of the reduction in CE places for the provision of community services. In this regard I emphasise that FÁS prioritises projects according to the types of services provided and levels of unemployment in the locality and will co-ordinate reductions to minimise the negative effects on groups and services most in need of CE. Priority groups include the drugs task forces, child care service provision and designated disadvantaged areas covered by the new RAPID programme and the BMW region.
In addition, the social economy programme is available to support the development of social economy enterprises that will benefit the economic and social regeneration of communities. Local social economy working groups have been established in the 38 designated disadvantaged partnership areas and in 16 non-partnership areas. In this way, the social economy is targeted at areas which traditionally have had high dependence on services provided under CE.
A review of active labour market programmes, as provided for under the PPF, has recently commenced under the standing committee on the labour market, which is chaired by my Department. The committee includes representatives of the community pillar, employers and trade unions, as well as other Departments and FÁS. Consultants have recently been appointed by my Department to facilitate a rigorous assessment of the effectiveness of existing programmes, which will help to inform the deliberations of the standing committee. Terms of reference for the consultants' work were agreed by a steering group representing the standing committee, which included all the social partners.
I fully recognise the range of valued services across communities which have been provided with the support of CE. The mainstreaming initiative recognises that certain key support services, such as in the education and health areas, can best be provided through the Department with functional responsibility in the relevant area. This is why the appropriate funding transfers from FÁS to the Departments in question are taking place. FÁS is undertaking its own internal review of the scheme, which should further inform the prioritising of activity within CE, taking account of the needs of disadvantaged groups and the provision of services to areas experiencing severe social and economic disadvantage. The future policy direction of active labour market programmes, including CE, will be informed by the outcome of these processes.
