Vol. 573 No. 2
2 Mr. Howlin asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if she has now received the report of the cross-departmental senior officials group considering the options for the future of community employment; the main recommendations of the report; if it is intended to publish the report; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [24636/03]
4 Mr. Murphy asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if the number of places in community employment schemes or new similar schemes in 2004, will reach 2002 levels. [24637/03]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 and 4 together.
Over the past 12 months officials have facilitated consideration by Ministers of options for the future of CE in the period ahead. Work in this area is not yet complete. Conclusions are expected to be reached in the context of the Estimates for 2004. The options papers have been prepared for the information of Ministers as an input into Government decisions on the Estimates, and will not be published. The average participation rate on the community employment programme is expected to be in the region of 22,500 during 2003 with a projected year-end participation rate of 20,000. This amounts to a reduction of 5,000 places on the year-end position for 2002.
The Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, has acknowledged that there has been a savage reduction in the last two years of 10,000 places from a scheme that employed 39,500 people in 1998. Does the Minister of State accept that participants across the country are confused as to their future, as are the people trying to run the schemes and those they serve? Does he accept that there is an urgent need for clarity on these matters? Would he accept that many of the documents he refuses to publish have been leaked to the public domain? Would he accept further that newspapers are speculating openly that he is conducting a trade-off between an additional 5,000 CE places and the abolition of the jobs initiative scheme in which 2,200 long-term unemployed people are involved, and the social economy programme which provides 2,300 jobs in the most disadvantaged areas? I am seeking clarity on this matter in the House, to which Ministers are accountable, so that those planning the schemes, the communities depending on them and the workers who have given so readily of their time will know what their future holds.
I am sure Deputy Howlin is fully aware that one does not necessarily pay a great deal of attention to everything one reads in the newspapers. I accept there has been some con fusion with regard to the reduction in CE places, but much of it has been caused by inaccurate comments from people in this House and elsewhere. The Government decided last year to reduce CE places from 25,000 to 20,000. That was the only decision taken by Government in this regard and it has now been implemented.
Accepting that there has been some difficulty for schemes throughout the country as a result of that reduction, it is important to point out that the decision was taken against a background of a reduction in long-term unemployment to its current level of 1.5% and the issue of 45,000 work permits within the past 12 months. I do not agree that confusion has been caused by my Department. We have gone through a very comprehensive review process across a number of Departments, which also involved FÁS. Following completion of that process, proposals are now before Government, which will take decisions in the context of the 2004 Estimates.
I reject Deputy Howlin's suggestion that there have been attempted trade-offs or anything of that nature. In our Department, the Tánaiste and I are interested in putting in place a comprehensive approach which will involve an active labour market programme to give long-term unemployed people an opportunity to get back into the labour force, through more successfully focused training opportunities than they have had until now. We are also anxious to provide for the very significant range of community services which have developed on an ad hoc basis, but which have, we acknowledge, been very useful and successful. We are trying to put those two policy objectives in place – that is the thrust of our proposal which is before the Government.
Basically, we are trying to establish how many places will be available next year in the combination of schemes which, I understand, the Minister of State is now about to introduce. He stated in the House that at Estimates time this year there would be proposals for a scheme which would specially facilitate people over the age of 50 and those with disabilities. I wish to establish whether that will form part of the overall figure and whether it will involve a reduction in the number of places available in community employment or other schemes. I hope the Minister of State will honour his commitment.
In addition, the Tánaiste stated in the House last June that in conjunction with the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, she would shortly discuss the mainstreaming of CE schemes for environmental and community support activities. Has there been progress in that regard? Are those who will be mainstreamed into that activity still being included in the projected figures for next year?
First, I am not in a position to say what the final numbers on the various schemes will be until the Government has taken a decision in the context of consideration of the Estimates for 2004. As I have stated in the House and elsewhere, we are particularly anxious to cater for greater opportunities for people over 55 – not 50, as the Deputy stated – and those with special needs who, consequently, cannot access the labour force or participate in the progression which is critical to the success of CE schemes. I hope the Government will accept our proposals in that respect. However, it is incorrect to make an assumption with regard to reductions or otherwise in numbers. In relation to a recent report that the number involved in CE schemes would be reduced to 15,000, I assure Deputies there are no proposals for a reduction of that nature.
Does the Minister for Finance agree?
With regard to mainstreaming, one of the difficulties being reported by CE scheme operators around the country is that education mainstreaming has not worked as intended. Many of those on CE schemes who tried to get employment opportunities in the education system did not succeed in doing so. In many cases, those jobs went to people other than CE participants. Another difficulty is that the cost of that exercise has been significant, in comparison to the cost of a very good CE programme previously provided for schools. While we are still considering the whole future of the programme, the experience in the education sector has not been a good example. Consequently, we will have to be very careful in relation to any further mainstreaming in which we may become involved.
The report to the Cabinet committee on social exclusion made the point very well that the attempted mainstreaming has not worked efficiently. Accordingly, one should not attempt to do, in a different fashion, a job which has been done very well through CE. Since the Minister of State accepts that there are two separate components to CE and the associated schemes such as the jobs initiative and the social economy programme, namely, an active labour market component and a community services component, will he acknowledge that the cuts to date have impacted on valuable and important community programmes? Does he agree they have also impacted on people in respect of whom the Tánaiste had assured us that they would not be affected, namely the disabled?
Last week, 17 placements were lost from the employment network in North Strand Road, Dublin 3, including a component of disabled people. At a time when the Tánaiste was exhorting the private sector to ensure a 3% component of employment, the State sector should certainly be maintaining an equivalent provision for disabled workers. Does the Minister of State agree with me in that regard? Will he take specific measures to protect the most vulnerable people who are currently on CE schemes? In relation to my specific question earlier, will the Minister of State give a guarantee that the 20,000 level for CE schemes, which will be reached at the end of this year, will be maintained for 2004?
Would the Deputy be happy with such a guarantee?
I am asking for that guarantee – whether I will be happy with it remains to be seen. Will he give a further guarantee that the current numbers on the jobs initiative scheme and the social economy programme will also be maintained? He has denied there is to be a trade-off—
We are running out of time. I ask the Deputy to complete his question.
Two questions are being taken together, I understand. Will the Minister of State guarantee that the numbers on the three schemes, which are already at bedrock, will be maintained for 2004?
Of the six minutes allocated for this question, there is just a minute and a half remaining. I will allow a brief question from Deputy Murphy before the Minister of State replies.
This is very unsatisfactory.
It took the Deputy three minutes to ask one question. I call Deputy Murphy.
I have not received an answer to my question, a Cheann Comhairle.
Sorry, Deputy Murphy. In view of Deputy Howlin's objection, in accordance with Standing Orders, we will take the reply to Deputy Howlin's question first.
I cannot give guarantees, as Deputy Howlin is fully aware. However, at all times during the year, recognising the impact of the reduction to 20,000, I indicated that we would try to hold that level as being the bottom rung of the ladder. We accept that the cuts have impacted on people, but I believe even Deputy Howlin will accept that, given the significant changes in the labour market over a number of years, it was necessary to make changes in our labour market programme as we have done.
We must ensure we look after the less well off who are not capable of progressing into employment. Those on disability allowance have been exempt from CE schemes every year and it has not been any different this year. We are cognisant of the need to give people who are not capable of progressing into sustainable employment the opportunity to have further training and work experience. That applies to people with disabilities as it does to others. We cannot and will not provide full-time long-term employment under CE or any other scheme. That would completely defeat the purpose of the scheme and lead to an explosion in public service numbers.
