Joint Committee on Social Protection, Community and Rural Development and the Islands díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 15 Jun 2022

Social Welfare Benefits: Discussion

Chairman

This morning's meeting has been convened on foot of a recent request from the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine, in particular from its chairman, Deputy Jackie Cahill, to discuss issues around our recent hearings on the rural social scheme, the Tús initiative administered by the Department of Social Protection and related issues applying to carers in Ireland, particularly farmers, fishermen and fisherwomen. Tús is a community work placement programme providing short-term working opportunities for unemployed people. The rural social scheme is aimed at low-income farmers, fishermen and fisherwomen, particularly in rural Ireland. The objective of the scheme is to provide supplementary income to low-income farmers, fishermen and fisherwomen who would be unable to make an adequate living otherwise. The community employment, CE, scheme is an active market programme designed to provide eligible long-term unemployed people and other disadvantaged persons with the opportunity to engage in useful work within their local communities on a temporary and fixed-term basis. The benefits of all of these schemes for participants include stable income, better mental health and well-being and the promotion of safer working practices while also providing multiple benefits in their local communities by supporting voluntary, sporting and community organisations to improve amenities and deliver vital local services.

The final aspect of today's meeting concerns the operation of the carer's allowance. This could not come at a more opportune time right in the middle of National Carer's Week. Ireland has more than 500,000 family carers, or one in every three households. They provide an essential service by allowing older people and people with disabilities to live in their own homes and communities. While the pandemic has been incredibly difficult for family carers, it has also shown us how vital the care is to protect our most vulnerable citizens. At present, 115,000 full-time carers in Ireland receive the carer's support grant. Only 91,000 receive a carer's allowance in some form or other. We have heard evidence that approximately 6,000 full-time carers who receive the carer's support grant did not qualify for the carer's allowance based on the means test. Many more are in receipt of a reduced rate of payment due to spousal income. Members of this committee and Members throughout the Oireachtas in Government and the Opposition are all of the opinion that we must work towards a financial support system for family carers that is designed around the care given and is not dependent on the bank account of the spouse of a full-time carer.

I thank Deputy Cahill for requesting a meeting of this committee on subjects that forms an important part of our work programme. Members of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine are very welcome here today. I welcome senior officials from the Department of Social Protection, namely, Ms Geraldine Hurley, assistant secretary with responsibility for employment services; Mr. Rónán Hession, assistant secretary; and Mr. Tony Kieran, principal officer, employment programmes. We have been briefed by departmental officials that employment rates have recovered far faster than expected following the lifting of Covid restrictions, which is a very positive development. More than 2.5 million people are now in employment. The seasonally adjusted employment unemployment rate has fallen to 4.8% with just over 172,000 people on the live register at the start of June. Post Covid, we have moved to a situation where labour supply is tight and some employers are reporting difficulties in recruitment. I thank members of both joint committees for prioritising this issue on our work programme. I am also thankful for the briefing from the secretariat to members, particularly the briefing from Ms Hayley O'Shea, and the briefing from the Department.

Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of a person or entity.

Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative they comply with any such direction.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against any person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way to make him or her identifiable.

I call Ms Hurley to make her opening remarks.

Ms Geraldine Hurley

I thank the committee members for the invitation to speak today. I am joined by my colleagues, Rónán Hession and Tony Kieran. We provided the committee with a copy of this statement in advance of the meeting. The committee has asked for an update on the operation of the rural social scheme, RSS, and its interaction with community employment, CE, and Tús and the operation of the carer’s allowance scheme.

It might be useful to first set out the current labour market context, which is as summarised by the Chairman. Employment rates have recovered faster than expected following the lifting of Covid restrictions and over 2.5 million people are now in employment. The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate has fallen to 4.8%, with just over 172,000 people now on the live register. Post-Covid, we have moved very quickly to a situation where labour supply is tight and with some employers reporting difficulties in recruitment. As we continue to recover from Covid, this labour market environment sets the context in which employment schemes and programmes operate.

The Department operates community employment, the rural social scheme and Tús. There is commonality across all schemes in that they are delivered by the community and voluntary sector to provide placements for the long-term unemployed or, in the case of RSS, underemployed people. CE and Tús serve a dual purpose, first, to provide a stepping stone to employment for people who have had difficulty, over an extended period, in securing full-time employment, and, second, in doing this, to provide services in and for the local community. There are currently over 19,000 participants on CE and just under 5,000 on Tús, with a further 2,890 on RSS.

Post-Covid, there are vacancies on schemes, which is posing challenges for some of them. Recent positive employment trends, with the reduction in unemployment and in the number of long-term unemployed, do impact our schemes, just as they impact employers recruiting in the open labour market. In many ways, this a positive development but it means there is a smaller pool of candidates, that the candidates who are available are more likely to face significant employment barriers and that, overall, it is more difficult to fill vacant places.

The Department continues to work closely with schemes to fill vacancies and to adapt terms and conditions to the prevailing labour market conditions. The most recent reforms to the conditions governing the schemes were introduced by the Minister, Deputy Humphreys, and the Minister of State, Deputy Joe O’Brien, at the start of the year. Prior to setting these out, I will briefly explain the three schemes.

As members are aware, CE is a long-standing scheme and was set up in 1994. Participants gain work experience by providing a range of services of benefit to local communities, with the objective of assisting participants to find employment. Examples of activities include amenities management, arts and culture, sports, Tidy Towns, meals on wheels, childcare and health-related services. Currently, those who are unemployed and in receipt of an eligible payment can participate in CE. CE placements are generally between one and three years, with a lifetime maximum of six years. Since the start of 2022, those who are over 60 years are exempt from these limits and can remain on their scheme until they reach pension age. The State investment in CE is significant. The budget for CE in 2022 is €375 million, supporting over 840 schemes countrywide, and this can cover around 22,500 participant places.

The rural social scheme, which was introduced in 2004, is an income support initiative that provides part-time employment opportunities for farmers and fishermen. Eligibility for participation in RSS largely derives from farm assist, with the farm assist means assessment applying to participants on the scheme. Participants must continue to be actively farming or fishing. The total budget in 2022 is significant at €52 million and the scheme, which has sanction for 3,350 places, currently has some vacancies. The type of work carried out by RSS participants in rural areas includes enhancing the local environment, energy conservation work and providing community care. The RSS is delivered through local development companies and Údarás na Gaeltachta.

Tús is an activation measure that commenced operation in 2011. It provides one-year, quality work opportunities in the community and voluntary sectors for those who are unemployed for more than a year. The scheme is delivered by local development companies and Údarás na Gaeltachta. Activities include village and countryside enhancement projects, social care and care for the elderly, preschool and after-school services. The budget for Tús in 2022 is €112.6 million. The 2022 budget allocation can cover just under 7,000 participant places.

With regard to the conditions on the schemes, participants on all three schemes are contracted to work 19.5 hours per week and their rate of pay is based on their underlying social welfare payment plus an additional €22.50 per week, subject to a minimum payment of €230.50 per week. Participants may also receive increases in respect of a qualified adult and child dependants and retain secondary benefits.

As with all other sectors of the economy and society, Covid-19 presented very real challenges for the operation of employment support programmes. I am aware that many schemes played a key role in supporting communities during this period. The Department put in place emergency measures to support schemes throughout the pandemic, in particular through extending participant contracts. This occurred on a number of occasions, initially from March 2020 up to April 2022. These extensions allowed participants to remain on CE and Tús schemes much longer than the one, three or six years normally permitted. This provided schemes with certainty as regards their ability to deliver important local services, while ensuring that participants were able to complete work experience and training programmes impacted by shutdowns. As with other Covid support measures, these are now being wound down. Participants with Covid-related extended contracts started to leave schemes from early April 2022. This will continue on a phased basis over a number of months, well into 2023.

As the economy and society emerged from Covid, it was clear, given the resurgence in open labour market employment, that some schemes were encountering difficulties maintaining services and that this could continue in 2022 and into 2023. This derived from issues in regard to the filling of vacancies. As a consequence, the Minister, Deputy Humphreys, and the Minister of State, Deputy Joe O’Brien, announced wide-ranging reforms to schemes last December. These included permitting all persons over 60 years of age to stay on CE and RSS until reaching pension age; ensuring that CE participants whose contract term is coming to an end will be permitted to stay on CE until a replacement is found; and updating the baseline year to 2014 and ensuring time spent on CE before this baseline year does not count towards lifetime limits on CE.

In introducing reforms such as these, a careful balance needs to be maintained between providing employment support measures for the long-term unemployed or underemployed people, on the one hand, and delivering important local services, on the other, and, in doing this, to ensure participants are supported to progress on to employment, in particular when there are large numbers of unfilled work opportunities available in the open labour market. The Department is continuing to consider how terms and conditions can be modified to support the delivery of local community services in the current strong labour market environment, and some proposals are currently being considered by the Minister for submission to Government shortly.

The Department holds regular meetings with employment support schemes and their representatives for exchange of views and to work through operational issues. For example, an operational forum covering all schemes meets three times each year. The Minister for Social Protection and the Minister of State, Deputy O’Brien, regularly attend these meetings. Ministers also visit and engage with schemes throughout the country. Departmental staff, whether locally through the community development officers or otherwise, work closely with schemes on all aspects of their operation. Centrally, there are also meetings with various groups and organisations involved on schemes, including the Irish Local Development Network, ILDN, and Pobal.

I will now address issues in relation to carers. Carer’s allowance is the primary income support through which the Department supports carers. Carer’s allowance is a payment to people on low incomes who are caring full-time for a person who needs support because of age, disability or illness. There are currently just under 91,000 people in receipt of carer's allowance.

This year the estimated expenditure on the carer’s allowance scheme is more than €990 million. As part of budget 2022, significant changes were made to the carer’s allowance means test. The capital and savings disregard was increased from €20,000 to €50,000 while the weekly income disregard was increased from €332.50 to €350 for a single person and from €665 to €750 for carers with a spouse or partner. These changes came into effect on 2 June and many carers will now be brought into the carer's allowance system for the first time. Along with the 2020 measure, increasing the number of hours a carer could work from 15 to 18.5 hours per week allows more carers who are in a position to work to have a higher household income.

As part of budget 2021, the carer’s support grant was increased by €150 to €1,850. It is automatically paid to recipients of carer's allowance, carer's benefit and domiciliary care allowance. Carers who are not in receipt of one of these payments may also qualify for the grant. On 2 June, this grant was paid to some 121,000 carers and their families. The overall cost of the grant this year is €262 million.

In conclusion, the Department values the very real contribution all employment schemes make to their communities and to the individual person participating in the schemes. The Department is very aware of the challenges currently faced by CE, Tús and RSS. Both the Minister and the Minister of State are currently examining a further set of proposals to support schemes by further improving the recruitment and referral process, extending eligibility to new cohorts and reducing the level of participant churn on some schemes. This is with a view to bringing proposals on all three schemes to Government in the near future. This underlines that the operation of these schemes and their interplay with other social welfare benefits, local communities and the wider labour market is kept under constant review with the aim of ensuring they continue to fulfil their remit and operate to the benefit of all stakeholders even as labour market conditions change. I thank the Chair. My colleagues and I are happy to respond to any questions members may have.

Deputy Jackie Cahill

I thank the witnesses for their opening statements. We are in a completely different place now as regards community schemes. Employers inform us that it is difficult to get people to fill any vacancies in the hospitality and farming sectors among others. These schemes still have an important role to play because there are people who will not be able to take their place in the normal working environment of mainstream employment for whatever reasons. For example, they may not be able for the pressures.

Deputy Ó Cuív would be more knowledgeable that I am about the rural social scheme because it was his brainchild. The six-year rule means that eligibility for the scheme is based on farm income. If eligibility criteria allow a person to qualify, I cannot understand why this rule is being imposing. The scheme is working well and has great benefits for rural communities, similar to the CE scheme. I acknowledge the fact that when people are near pension age they will not be taken off the scheme, which is an improvement. However, in my constituency for example a young man in his forties is on a rural social scheme. He is looking after two small villages in his locality, doing maintenance, cutting the grass in the GAA grounds and so forth, which is valuable work for the community. He now faces the guillotine of being taken off the scheme in about six months. He will never get a job in mainstream employment. He is able to keep his farm ticking over with a little supervision and help with the paperwork but he is doing an excellent job in his community. I urge the Department to review that six-year rule. When a person continues to meet the criteria for the scheme, I cannot see the logic in having a termination date.

The six-year rule is also an issue under the CE scheme. I am told by Tidy Towns committees and GAA committees that they cannot do without their CE workers. If the schemes are terminated after six years, there will not be replacements in the current employment environment. This means we have people who are compatible with the scheme and who are not costing the Exchequer any significant amount because the top-up is not economically enticing. These people are glad to do the work. It is good for their mental health. It gets them out of their home environment so that they meet people. The benefits for the individuals cannot be overstated. Communities and towns also benefit in different ways such as the tidy towns initiative. For example the St. Mary's Eliogarty memorial committee in Thurles looks after an old church, started a Famine museum and a commemorative garden that is the envy of many other places. Without the CE workers, they would not be able to maintain the standards. That also needs to be looked at in the context of where we are in the employment cycle. Villages will suffer without the people on CE schemes, of whom just a small percentage will enter mainstream employment.

The Tús scheme has a 12-month limit. I met scheme supervisors in my constituency office recently. For a person to be trained and ready to participate fully in the scheme, a term of 12 months is extremely short. That should be examined with a view to extending it to two years. There will be many benefits in that participants will hopefully enter mainstream employment but to expect Tús to achieve all its objectives for individuals, a 12-month period is too short. A two-year programme would be more beneficial for the scheme and for participants.

Supervisors on Tús and rural social schemes believe that their working conditions have not been recognised. Some improvements have been made for supervisors on CE schemes. It is imperative that the same is done for the supervisors on Tús and rural social schemes. Pension rights, pay and conditions for both schemes must be looked at seriously if we are going to keep these committed people on those schemes.

With regard to the carer's allowance, many farmers look after elderly relatives. It is difficult for farmers to qualify for the allowance because of the way the hours are compiled. In reality, a farmer is in and out constantly looking after the elderly person.

It is not practical for that farmer to try to calculate the number of hours he farms. He is engaged full time in supervising the care of the elderly person in the house. Whether he goes out to herd his animals or do other work, he is constantly supervising that person's care. More sympathy needs to be shown for the calculation of those hours by a farmer who is seeking carer's allowance, given he is 24-7 on site and always available. He will have to tend his animals and engage in farm activities at certain times of the day, but the reality is he is providing full-time care for that individual. Recognition must be given to that in the way the hours are compiled in the context of a farmer's eligibility for carer's allowance. Those are the points I would like to make on the scheme. It plays an extremely important role for people who, for whatever reason, will never secure mainstream employment. Some tweaks to it would make it far more suitable for the environment in which we are operating.

Chairman

Does Ms Hurley wish to start off by addressing some of those points?

Ms Geraldine Hurley

I will respond to some of those points and then hand over to my colleague to deal with some of the points on carers. On the rural social scheme, we are aware of the concerns about the six-year rule. It was introduced in 2017, so that rule will not start to apply until February of next year. It will only start to apply to people as they come up to being six years on the scheme. Therefore, it will not impact everybody in the scheme in February but we are very aware of the concerns. We are also aware the circumstances in which the rule was introduced in 2017 have changed somewhat compared with now and as we move into 2023. When that rule was introduced, additional places were assigned to the RSS. Therefore, there were positive aspects to that reform.

Regarding CE schemes, it is a challenge to fill vacancies on them to ensure services continue to be delivered while making sure schemes are not competing with open labour market employers in the locality who will also want to recruit people, be it people coming to the end of their time on a CE scheme or people who would be eligible to participate in one. I can assure the Deputy that, currently, if a replacement who would be ready to start cannot be found for a participant departing a scheme because his or her time has expired or his or her extended contract is expiring, the participant on it will not be required to leave it. It is a challenge in the context of where we are at in the employment cycle and with jobs being available in the open labour market for people who are leaving CE or who, otherwise, are unemployed, including those who are long-term unemployed. We must be conscious schemes are competing with local employers for participants.

On the 12-month limit applying to a placement on the Tús scheme, Tús was designed to be a shorter intervention than CE for people who are that bit more employment ready. It does not have the same training requirements, but if participants on completion of a Tús placement still feel they need more support and intervention, they are eligible to move on to a CE scheme.

Regarding the Deputy's point concerning supervisors, we very much appreciate the work supervisors on all three schemes do countrywide. The schemes would not be able to operate in terms of providing support, including training supports, to participants or in the provision of services locally. Our local community development officers work closely with supervisors in delivering the schemes. Regarding the differentiation in pay, CE supervisors have additional responsibilities over and above RSS and Tús supervisors with respect to training and development plans and other work they do. Historically, that is the reason there was some differentiation in pay.

I think I have answered all the Deputy’s points. I will pass over to my colleague Mr. Hession to deal with the points the Deputy raised about carers.

Mr. Rónán Hession

I thank the Deputy for his questions. On the carer’s point, the carer’s allowance payment is an income support for people who are providing full-time care and attention for a person for a period of longer than 12 months. It is primarily to support those who, because of their caring responsibilities, are not able to make themselves available for employment, which they would otherwise do. Within that, there is a balance and scope for carers to continue to work either to supplement their income or perhaps for those thinking ahead to when their caring role will stop, who will need to return to employment and who will need to keep that connection with the labour force. There is a threshold of 18.5 hours' employment per week. That was changed in budget 2020. Prior to that, there had been a ten-hour employment limit, and that was increased to 15 hours in 2006. It had been at that limit for a long time and we heard from carers for many years that limit was too restrictive and needed to be raised. A few budgets ago the threshold was increased to 18.5 hours. Last year the means test for the scheme was increased both for a single person and for a couple, where carers worked those extra hours, whether they were engaged in farming or in other employment that did not tip them over the threshold in terms of their means. With these provisions, it is about striking a balance. The raison d'être for the carer’s payment is to support people providing full-time care and attention for a person and balancing that with a recognition there are legitimate reasons, be it financial, personal or in context of longer term plans, a carer might also need to work. The 18.5 hour threshold is in place to provide some flexibility around that.

Deputy Claire Kerrane

I thank all our guests for coming in and for their opening statement. On the point made in the opening statement about community employment, in the first instance, providing a stepping stone to employment and, second, benefiting communities, that needs to be considered in the context of whether that is what community employment is. For some, it may be a stepping stone into employment but for others it is not. That needs to be acknowledged because no two jobseekers are the same and no two people on a CE scheme are the same. I am not sure community employment should be viewed, to some degree, as a job activation scheme for many of the participants on it. A number of issues were raised in the opening statement, which can be easily changed. Little changes can be made to these schemes that will make a big difference. We need to listen to the participants on schemes as they are best placed to advise us of the issues and, typically, to provide us with solutions to them.

The six-year rule applying to the RSS will be very problematic. It is only a number of months before it will start to kick in. It makes no sense to go ahead with the six-year rule. There are 2,890 participants on the RSS today. There are 460 vacancies on the scheme because it has a full national quota of 3,350 places. We know more than 1,400 and just under 1,500 participants will be affected by the six-year rule. Not only can the places available on the scheme today not be filled but nearly 1,500 participants, almost half the number on the scheme, will be taken off it next year. That does not make sense. I appreciate in some budgets additional places are announced and that is great, but additional places are no good when the existing places cannot be filled. There is no way, not in a million years, the six-year rule should go ahead.

I attended a meeting held by Galway Rural Development in Athenry a few weeks ago. It had a list of more than 170 organisations in County Galway that cannot get any support from the rural social scheme or Tús, or they have support but it is not enough, or they are about to lose support. Some 170 organisations are crying out for support and cannot get it.

However, we will take 1,500 people out of the scheme next year in that context. That is just bonkers. I hope that aspect will be looked at. I am concerned that the review of the RSS, which is important, and which I understand is, or should be taking place soon, was not referred to. Mention was made at the end of the opening statement of some changes being considered, but the specific review of the RSS is extremely important. It needs to be done, completed and finished by the end of this year and ahead of next year.

Turning to the community employment scheme, in this context, I remember raising issues concerning vacancies and the number of jobs advertised when that figure reached 1,200 and 1,400. Online today, more than 3,000 vacant jobs are being advertised in the context of the community employment scheme. We are again going to take people off the scheme next year because they have done their six years, yet more than 3,000 jobs are advertised that cannot be filled. This is not an issue that has just emerged on the back of Covid-19, albeit I understand that the pandemic has had an impact. JobPath has been the greatest threat from day one, as referrals to it continue to increase and the CE and other schemes have suffered as a result. This has been an issue for quite some time, and it is not new. Alarm bells should be ringing because some 3,000 jobs are being advertised today.

Moving on to Tús, and this has been said already, I do not understand why people must be unemployed for a year before they can get onto this scheme. A year is a long time to be unemployed. I do not see why this is the case. We now have an influx of Ukrainian refugees into communities, and especially into rural communities, across the State and these people can make great contributions to these communities. Rules such as the one I referred to can make it difficult for these refugees and for others to get onto a scheme. Why have this barrier there in the first place? It is important to say as well that, in addition to the undoubted benefits these schemes bring to the communities, the participants themselves benefit too. It gives people who are on their own a purpose and a reason to get up in the morning. There are huge mental health benefits. Again, all of this is why the six-year rule should be removed.

Regarding the RSS, the witnesses will know that issues have been raised regarding eligibility in this context and the need for this to be widened. This facet was mentioned, and I hope it is something that will be considered. The one year allowed on the Tús scheme is also problematic. It is particularly the case for people seeking work but who have only one year of work experience. That is problematic, and the time allowed should be increased to two years. The witnesses will know that we had representatives involved with the schemes here some weeks ago, and they told us that their funding is reduced at the end of the year if they have not filled their places. There are, though, obvious difficulties in filling those places. Therefore, the loss of funding and the reduction in that context is not fair.

The opening statement referred to the Department holding regular meetings with the representatives of the employment support schemes. When was the last regular meeting with the representatives of the employment support schemes, which schemes were they and when did that meeting take place? On this side of things as well, there are also issues concerning pay and pensions. There are growing tensions among Tús and RSS supervisors. They are looking at their pay, which has not been increased in 14 years. There is also a difference in pay in respect of Tús, the CE scheme and the RSS, which amounts to about 14% to 15%. All those issues need to be examined. The forum was mentioned in the opening statement, and it is welcome, but that has only been re-established and it needs to explore all these aspects.

On carers, as has been said by Deputy Cahill, the way that applications from farmers seeking carers allowance are processed is bizarre. Someone behind a computer in the section will determine, based on the number of acres and the number of cattle and other livestock, that an applicant is doing under 18.5 hours. I am not sure how that figure is calculated. If we take a typical farmer, his or her land is near his or her home and he or she might be looking after his or her mother. For someone who is a small farmer, once a day he or she will go out and feed and look after his or her animals. That is it. There are of course busier times of year, but I am unsure how this process works in respect of the calculation being made by someone behind a computer and the determination of the 18.5 hours in that context.

I also hope that the Department has looked at the carers and what three of those family carers had to say when they came before this committee some weeks ago. I refer to the massive financial pressure they are under and the difficulties they face in accessing carer's allowance. The means test in that regard needs to be looked at urgently. Equally, the 18.5-hour rule should not be in place. If a carer is caring for a loved one, then he or she is caring for a loved one. Regarding how carers spend their time outside of those hours, I do not think it is fair to say that we will give them a payment that is below the poverty line anyway and that they will then work full time as carers and not do anything else outside the home for longer than 18.5 hours. I do not think that is right. It is a stipulation that should be reconsidered, rather than perhaps the idea of increasing these hours further.

Chairman

I thank Deputy Kerrane and I apologise to her in the context of addressing her earlier. I was watching the Dáil on the monitor and I got distracted. I call Ms Hurley to address Deputy Kerrane’s questions.

Ms Geraldine Hurley

The community employment scheme was established as an employment activation measure for long-term unemployed people. Over time, it is very much true to say, the services delivered through those schemes have become increasingly important for the communities in which they are delivered. The primary objective of the CE scheme, however, remains for it to act as a pathway to help people particularly disadvantaged when seeking employment on that road back to employment. Over time, different rules have been applied and different adaptations have been made to the CE scheme to help this cohort of long-term unemployed people. These are the people recognised internationally as facing the most acute problems in the labour market. Even at times when there are high levels of employment, people in this position can face problems re-entering the labour markets, getting jobs in that open market and moving away from dependency on State supports. That being said, we fully recognise that these services now being delivered, and that we all see, are extremely important and an important aspect of the CE scheme. The balance we must maintain in this regard is to ensure that those dual objectives are supported as we move forward, while also ensuring that an eye is kept on overall cost issues in respect of the Exchequer.

Regarding the RSS six-year rule, the numbers of people that will be affected by it, starting in February 2023, are somewhat less than the Deputy mentioned, because, as she is probably aware, the Minister, Deputy Humphreys, and the Minister of State, Deputy Joe O’Brien, introduced a change in January 2022 that will remove anybody aged over 60 from the application of that rule. Therefore, of the 1,400 people who started on the RSS after 2017, this rule will no longer apply to 400 of them. This does still leave 1,000 people in this position. Given that there are issues now in filling all the places on the RSS, this rule will pose challenges and we are very much aware of them. This rule, however, will start to be applied from February 2023. As I said, though, we are acutely aware of the challenges that will pose to some schemes and it is being kept under review.

The Deputy also mentioned the review of the RSS not being referred to. That review came from an interdepartmental group report produced at the end of 2019 and the beginning of 2020. One of the things the report requested was a review of the RSS that would look at the operational responsibility for the scheme and where it would lie. That review has a wider focus than the six-year rule, but this is work that will commence soon. Equally, however, it is the case that the environment has changed significantly since that report was produced and since that recommendation was made. Therefore, we must also look at its relevance in a post-Covid-19, full employment environment in respect of the scope of that review, what aspects we need to examine and the dual balance in the context of schemes.

Turning to the vacancies on the CE schemes, those the Deputy referred to were probably advertised on JobsIreland.ie, and there are many advertisements for CE schemes on that platform now. I assure Deputy Kerrane again, however, that people will not be required to leave a CE scheme, even when they come to the end of their contract or their extended contract, unless a replacement is in place to ensure that the service delivery aspect of the scheme can continue to be maintained and that the scheme remains viable. I already mentioned a figure of 600 people who have had their contracts further extended since the beginning of April 2022 and this process will continue. Additionally, regarding referrals from the Department onto schemes, we are doing a great deal of work there in respect of working with the schemes on how the referral process works, in respect of ensuring that people are referred in an efficient and timely manner, and also on ensuring that this system works for the benefit of the participants on the schemes. This is being done in conjunction with our case officers in Intreo. That work is ongoing.

The Deputy referenced JobPath. Persons on JobPath are still fully eligible for community employment while they continue their work with JobPath. I will ask Mr. Kieran to discuss eligibility for farm assist.

Mr. Tony Kieran

The question was about giving access to farm assist to people on other schemes. Changes to farm assist came into effect this month. We have extended the disregard for many of the additional schemes operated by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, such as the ash dieback scheme. This should increase the availability of farm assist, which is a gateway to the rural social scheme for people who are farming.

Mr. Rónán Hession

I thank the Deputy for the questions on carers. I will go through the points raised. On the 18.5 hours, I am open to correction but my understanding is that it is declared by the customer. It is not that we assess how people's hours are spent on the farm. The customer declares it to us with regard to the 18.5 hours for the carer's allowance. It is the customer who tells us.

We certainly do listen to the proceedings of the committee. We follow them with interest. I have seen what the carers' associations have said. We meet carers regularly. We have an annual carers forum, which met approximately two weeks ago. Importantly, we do not just hear from the representative organisations, which are very good at articulating issues among carers. We also hear from carers. Some of the same people who spoke to the committee spoke to us. We have heard first-hand what their experience is. It is a two-way engagement. They make presentations to us. We also have workshops with carers' groups and carers themselves. Some of the changes I outlined with regard to the means test and the 18.5 hours emerged from previous carers forums where those ideas were generated. We have very close engagement with the groups. We have an annual carers forum and they are also engaged in our pre-budget forum. The means test was increased in the previous budget, which was the first time there was an increase in 13 or 14 years.

In social welfare terms, the carer's allowance has the highest threshold for a means test. The means test for a single person on carer's allowance is €350. For those on disability allowance, it is €140. The threshold is quite high in social welfare terms. I take the point on the financial pressures that carers are under. In discussions with us they have certainly highlighted that their position with regard to outgoings is very demanding and that the costs they bear have a material bearing on their household income. I hope this answers the questions.

Ms Geraldine Hurley

The Deputy asked when was the last time we met those involved in the schemes. We meet them regularly at local level through community development officers. During Covid we set up an overarching forum that met online. It met three times in 2021. It also met in February. The Minister of State, Deputy Joe O'Brien, attended. We have met RSS and Tús supervisors and their unions. We have constant engagement with the unions. We met them several weeks ago on the ex gratia payment issue. There are also meetings with the Irish Local Development Network and our colleagues in the Department of Rural and Community Development in various fora. There is constant engagement. I hope we will be able to get back to more in-person engagement. Ministers have been able to visit schemes in person more frequently since the beginning of the year and that is very welcome.

The Deputy asked about Ukrainians. As she is aware, under the EU directive, Ukrainians have the same right to access the labour market and labour market programmes as all other EU citizens. The same rules will apply to them with regard to duration on jobseeker payments before they are eligible to participate in programmes. We have been doing a lot of work with Ukrainians in terms of employment supports, ensuring they have information on employment opportunities and matching employment opportunities. We have found that many people coming from Ukraine are highly skilled. Some have language issues. There are opportunities in the open labour market of which they can avail.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

I thank the witnesses for their presentation. I welcome some of the recent changes. They are definitely incremental steps in the right direction. However, I will say, as would all my colleagues, that it is still probably too little. The witnesses might be able to tell me how many people are long-term unemployed. In other words, how many people have been on jobseeker's allowance for longer than one year? It is fine to say the unemployment rate is 4.5% and that we have full unemployment but the subtext of this is that all of the commercially employable people are employed. It does not mean there is not a large cohort of people who are long-term unemployed and that the system has said employers will not employ these people. We need to look at this figure and then ask why there are vacancies on community employment schemes and Tús schemes. Full employment is defined as 4.5% unemployment and many of these people are long-term unemployed.

I welcome the slight shift I have heard in the statement today. I have been in politics since 1994. Since the schemes were introduced, there has been an argument that they are purely activation schemes and the fact they provide a service to the community is an accidental incidental of temporary employment. There are now two recognised aims of the schemes. These are activation and providing vital services. Many of the services provided in rural areas through community employment, Tús and rural social schemes are provided in cities by paid full-time employees, such as in public parks and public areas.

There should be three equal aims to the schemes. One is activation and I have nothing against activation for community employment schemes and Tús but the rural social scheme is different. The second aim is to provide services. The third is to provide useful occupation from long-term unemployed people who are unlikely to get commercial employment but can make a contribution. When I was in the Department, Dr. Clem Leech was its chief medical officer. He gave me a simple one-page note that showed the devastating effect on people's health of unemployment and being unemployed. It has an effect on morbidity and mortality. They go to the doctor more frequently. I would love to see a move whereby we recognise three equal aims to the schemes rather than them having the primary aim of activation, a subsidiary aim of services and no emphasis on the long-term unemployed. This is where the issue of the cap on the number of years arises.

On a big policy level, does the Department wonder why community employment is there and why we have Tús? Does it ever ask what is the purpose of it and why people can go straight from the live register to Tús and community employment? Does it ever ask what this is all about? Does it ask whether it is rational? The structure of Tús schemes is the result of the insistence of the Department of Finance at the time. They were not the creation of the Department with responsibility for social protection. The idea put forward at the time was that people would go on a community employment scheme as a training activation scheme. If people did not graduate from it, they would graduate to Tús and there would be no time limit.

I remember it was 2010. The scheme was taken, as amended, in a crisis. Does the Department accept it is time now to look at the big picture and to have a much more coherent policy such that there is intensive activation and so on and a lot of money is spent on training, but that if that does not work after, say, three years, the person is not thrown back onto the scheme he or she was on or kept in training? Even if such people are unlikely to get employment, what they need is an employment scheme such that they graduate to that and there is no time limit. This should be put into a totally rational picture. Has there been any talk in the Department of looking at that? If the Department digs out the files, it will find some interesting answers in them as to how this rather bizarre situation arose and how it did not arise because of the Department but, rather, arose in an absolute crisis. We got the scheme with conditions, and the conditions the Department of Finance put on it at the time were totally irrational, but better half a loaf than no bread. It is time now, however, after 12 years, to look at the scheme, to pause for a second and to ask if this was what it was designed to do or how this rather odd situation arose.

RSS is not an activation scheme because the people on RSS already have jobs. They are farmers. That is a condition of the scheme. That leads to a number of questions. Will the witnesses tell us in their reply how many people are on farm assist? That is crucial because, as far as I know, it might be about 5,000. It is certainly down on the figure during the economic crisis. I do not believe there ever was a justification for the six-year cap. The scheme was working fine without it. Whatever justification there was for it at the time, if the Department were to make the scheme an on-demand scheme, and there are people on farm assist who will not go onto RSS for whatever reason, there will not be a flood of people into the scheme because they are just not on farm assist. That is, I think, where 90% of the Department's RSS participants come from. The six-year rule is not required anymore. The scheme already has a number of vacancies. It has 3,350 places; it has only 2,800 participants. As Deputy Kerrane said, even allowing that 400 of them are over 60, that is still a difference of 1,000 people, and I do not know where the Department will find them. The Department should forget about reviews. Will somebody not make a decision without a big external review in some Department? Can we not go back to the days when civil servants and their Ministers made decisions on the obvious and did not keep putting everything back into a review? Can we not move on with that?

The next problem I wish to raise is a huge one. If the Department were to look at the number of people with dependent children or adults on their farm assist payments going onto RSS as a percentage of the total available pool, I would say it would find it to be much smaller than the number of single people. The reason for that is that if I am a single person, no matter what my farm income is, as long as I am eligible for €1 of farm assist, I will get the full payment, including the top-up. If, however, I have a dependent adult, all I get is €22 or €23 for 19.5 hours' work. The rest is clawed back off my farm income. Very few people would think it a great idea to work 19.5 hours for €22. That was another 2017 rule that came in. The scheme was working attractively.

Somebody once described this syndrome as follows. You sometimes meet people about whom it is said that if you were down in a hole, they would pull you out of it, but that if you started climbing a ladder, they would push you down again. It seems to me there is a bit of that involved in the way this works in that if you are really down in the hole, yes, the Department of Social Protection tends to pull you out, but if you start climbing the ladder, between means-testing and the rule that the Department will give you €22 if you give it 19.5 hours' work, the Department pushes you down again when you start getting on and might have a slightly better lifestyle. It was attractive to couples with children to go onto the scheme because they could keep their farm income as long as it was not too big. There was a limit on the income they could have. They had to be eligible for farm assist. When that was happening, small and medium-scale farmers found it possible to stay in full-time farming with the scheme and to put their children to school, to college and so on. That was a major contribution to society. I remember saying at the time that it was a much better focused expenditure of State money, of public money, because it helped that cohort of farmers, than all the grants they were getting because those are indiscriminate and give the multimillionaires the same amounts they give the people at the bottom. Then we got mean and cut them. Are there any thoughts on going back on that decision?

Ms Hurley said these schemes cost €112 million, €375 million and €52 million. Will she tell me how much it would cost if all these people went back onto their basic payments? My memory is that between, say, a Tús and an RSS scheme, the difference is something like €5,000 per participant. Those schemes are in the Department of Social Protection, so if it were to scrap all the schemes, it would not save €375 million, €112 million and €52 million because the costs of other schemes in the same Department would go up. One of the reasons the schemes were put into the Department of Social Protection was that the internal argument between Departments would be ended and the Minister for Social Protection could go to the Minister for Finance, or the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, as he is now, and explain to him or her that an extra thousand places costs not a gross cost but only a net cost because 1,000 people will be lost from farm assist, jobseeker's allowance or whatever other payment they are on. Again, maybe the witnesses could tell us the real, net cost of the schemes, not their gross cost.

Speaking of rationalisation, Tús and RSS work on the basis that there are, I think, 30-odd companies involved. CE still operates on a much different basis in that every company is independent. There are 800 companies, 800 audits and 800 supervisors with massive employment responsibilities that grow every day, all under voluntary committees, whereas Tús and RSS are managed centrally from the point of view of employment responsibility by the partnership companies, which are professional companies. The wages are paid from Clifden by Pobal, and the local committee decides what work needs to be done and dusted. That can involve day-to-day supervising or work in liaison with the sponsoring company to arrange that. It seems to me to be a better arrangement. It seems to me there could be significant exposure from those 800 companies all being independent. Many of them have voluntary committees. That is a huge and unnecessary burden on them. It would be much better to have the employment arrangement of Tús and CE, whereby the heavy employment responsibilities are on a more central body and there are shared services for paying out the salaries.

I wish to speak about carer's allowance and the new approach to the hours for farmers. I could say many things about carer's allowance but I will focus only on farmers. Full-time care and attention is very hard to define. For example, if you have an old person or a disabled child in your house, they may go to bed at 10 o'clock at night and not get up most days until 8 a.m., but you are tied to being there. If they need to go to the toilet or need anything in the night, you have to be there. There might be nights when they will not call you; there might be nights when they will.

Are they eligible hours? Somebody else could go away for the weekend if they were not caring and leave an adult behind or whatever. With a child who is not disabled, you could get an ordinary babysitter in, however, that is not possible with a disabled child. Again, with the farmer, a similar thing happens. Many elderly persons would not be able to go to the toilet on their own because physically they could not get out of the chair. They could not perform other bodily functions, as they call them. However, if often happens that a person like that might have their lunch and then go to the toilet or whatever, and you might be able to leave them. You might be able to work by mobile phone and be able to leave them for an hour or two or three to go a few fields down, do your work and be on call. However, you could not go off for the day or be at full-time employment, because you would have to be on call all the time. Is that full-time care and attention? Are they care hours? On the forms at the moment it is not very clear if they are care hours. We are trying to mathematise very human situations and box them out into very kind of fixed chunks when caring for somebody is not like that. You are trying to make up these hours. Would somebody write a little menu of the eligible hours? I would imagine that if you are tied to and in the house and the person is asleep, you still have to be there if you are on call all night. Whether they do not get up, get up once or five times, you are still there. I will eave it at that.

Ms Geraldine Hurley

I thank the Deputy for his questions. The first reason there are vacancies at the moment on CE and the other schemes is because of the positive labour market. I have the figures here that the Deputy was looking for. Of the 172,000 people on the live register, we would calculate around 45,000 are eligible for these schemes. That is a subset of the long-term unemployed. Approximately 70,000 or fewer are long-term unemployed, but some might be signing on for credit and things such as that as well. We would estimate there are around 45,000 who would be eligible CE or Tús as well. The point is well made in terms of matching that number of people to fill the vacancies that exist on the schemes as well. That work is ongoing with our Intreo offices, our case officers, CDOs and with schemes as well. Not everybody is interested in going on schemes, so our Intreo case officers are working with people on that as well. In addition, there are issues around geographical location. We are standardising and streamlining the referral process so that people who are eligible to go on schemes are being referred to schemes in the locality and other practical things as well.

Deputy Marc Ó Cathasaigh took the Chair.

Ms Geraldine Hurley

The second reason vacancies are higher than normal is I suppose because of the emergency support measures we put in place during Covid, which meant that contracts were extended, as I said, over the period of two years. As that has now come to the end from April, that means the churn, or the numbers leaving CE, is increasing month to month. That creates additional vacancies, which is why we have put the arrangements in place so no one has to leave a scheme. Even if a job is being advertised but there is no one suitable there to take up that position for whatever reason, the existing person can stay on that scheme as well. That is adding to the number of vacancies. However, there is an increased number of vacancies at the moment for that reason.

On the overall cost of schemes, when we are having discussions in the annual Estimates process with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, as the Deputy would be more than aware, it is looking at the gross cost of schemes. That is what they ask us. We obviously provide backup information on the costs of schemes. This is across all our employment support schemes and not only on the ones for the long-term unemployed. It is the gross cost that the Department very much looks at and looks for justification for.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

Officials or the Minister?

Ms Geraldine Hurley

We deal with it at official level.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

The Minister is very rational and knows it is the gross budget for social welfare.

Ms Geraldine Hurley

I think a concern sometimes is to make sure that any of the employment support programmes are not substituting for jobs that may be available in the open labour market as well. We are showing that there is progression across the board. In addition, from our general Intreo employment support services as well.

On how many people are on farm assist, the latest figures I have from May are 4,770, if I am correct. Yes, that is correct. That is the number on farm assist. It is true that number has been reducing over the past number of years as well.

In terms of looking at the big picture, I suppose we are always looking at, across all our employment programmes or activation services, the work that Intreo does on the provision of employment, training, advice and guidance to unemployed people. Pathways to Work is the Government’s latest employment services strategy, which was launched last July. We would also have the advice at our disposal of the Labour Market Advisory Council, which is looking at that big overall picture and advising the Ministers as well on the measures and mixture of measures that are available in the context of the current labour market environment. There is a mix of representatives and experts on the Labour Market Advisory Council and they gave advice to the Minister during Covid, protections of the post-Covid response to the labour market and now, in the new context, I am sure they will be providing further advice on measures that are currently in place in this space, but also across the board as well.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

Ms Hurley has not explained the present rationale of the CE-Tús configuration.

Ms Geraldine Hurley

The Deputy knows better than I do, the reason Tús was introduced in 2011 was to have a shorter intervention for-----

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

I am sorry to interrupt. I beg Ms Hurley's pardon. She can check the record. The reason it was introduced was the exact opposite. It was as I outlined. It was meant to be a follow-on permanent scheme to go onto. It was the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform that changed and destroyed it. Therefore, I wonder what the present rationale is.

Ms Geraldine Hurley

The present rationale is, as compared to CE where you have to do training, a personal progression plan and where all those kind of interventions are in place, for Tús, it is much more purely work experience. It is a shorter intervention that will provide a quick stepping stone back to the labour market.

The Deputy had another question about the different organisational structures. I take his point on them, where there is CE with the 840 schemes all responsible for the wide range of the organisational remit as well as the community remit, as well as delivering the services, and a different model for RSS and Tús. I would imagine that is due to the time they started. CE was probably largely before the partnership of the local development structure, which had not developed to the extent it was in place when the later schemes were introduced. Is that something that is now still valid given that those structures are still in place? That is a point that needs to be looked at again.

I think the Deputy had certain questions on carers. I will pass over to my colleague.

Mr. Rónán Hession

I thank the Deputy for his questions. His question was about the full-time care intention and how we come to that. Broadly speaking, the rules are around 35 hours or more caring in a week and five days out of seven. I do not know off the top of my head whether that is broken down and there are operational guidelines between night-time and daytime caring.

I expect someone providing the level of care being outlined by the Deputy - we all know people in our families doing it - would have around-the-clock and daytime care. If it goes over 35 hours, the threshold would probably be met.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

I may be tied to a location, for example, although I am not physically feeding or toileting people all the time. People may have to be there because the person being cared for has a dicky heart or is at risk from a brain haemorrhage. The person may have advanced Alzheimer's disease and be at risk of going out the door. I could, for example, be sitting down to watch a television programme with that person or get to go out, if I close and lock the door, to go to the farm for an hour or two. Is that a caring period, for example? It is causing absolute chaos with the formulation of the forms.

Mr. Rónán Hession

I can check that but I expect it would be in play in terms of caring time. It is not just the time when people are physically doing tasks. It relates to when a person is responsible for the person during that period. As I have said, off the top of my head I do not have the details in the operational handbook and how that is done.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

Could the operational rules be made available to the committee? I do not wish to keep interrupting but it is useful to get that information. There is nobody here who would not love to see that.

Mr. Rónán Hession

I will find the answer to the question and share it through the clerk.

The Deputy asked a more granular question about farm assist figures and I have a note on those relating to qualified adults and qualified children on the farm assist scheme. As my colleague, Ms Hurley, has said, there are approximately 4,700-odd on farm assist. The qualified adults number 1,895 and there are approximately 2,800 qualified children on the full rate, with a further 850 on the half rate. The total beneficiaries, including the primary recipients and dependants, number approximately 10,300. The Deputy asked about those figures.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

I was asking the following. Nearly one from two on the farm assist programme has a dependant, whether adult or child. Most of the people have a dependent adult and many of them would have children. If I look at the people recruited since 2017, will I find that one in two will have dependants or will I find the vast majority are now singles going in? For a participant with a partner or dependent child, the gain is €22 per week. That is the question. We are losing a rich seam of families and my colleagues would share my view. That must be addressed. We must go back to the old way so if a person had a farm income, that person got the full personal rate of €200. There is the adult dependant allowance, the child dependant allowance and the farm income is the person's own. It is not an awful lot to ask out of life.

Mr. Rónán Hession

I have my big book of statistics here so I can give you some figures for the years. As we go through the session I may be able to identify the figure but if I cannot get it for the Deputy today, I will come back to him on it. I might have it in our annual statistics report, which I have with me. If it is here, I can give it to the Deputy in the next intervention.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív

It would be very helpful.

Senator Mark Wall

I also thank our guests for being with us this morning and it is a very important discussion we are having. If it is okay, I will start on the topic of carers. I am aware that in the run-up to the increases in the means test on 1 June, many letters were sent to carers and those in receipt of the carer's allowance. Does the Department have any idea of how many people lost out as a result of that review and how many people had reduced payments? I know many people coming to my office were affected by the letters that went out and the reviews carried out. I am interested to know if those figures are available.

It has been said that in social welfare terms, the means test is very high and nobody will dispute that. I am sure the Department was listening and looking when we had some people in receipt of the carer's allowance before this committee. We heard heartbreaking testimony on that occasion. One of the issues they brought up was housing adaptation. I know it is not under this Department's remit but I am asking the question because I am aware there is a review ongoing of the housing adaptation grant. Has the Department of Social Protection had any consultation with the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage about that? It is very important that the review is carried out and that carers' voices are heard. I am very interested in hearing if the Department has had any input into that.

In his opening remarks, the Chairman mentioned there are approximately 6,000 carers not getting the benefit of the carer's or domiciliary care allowance but who get the carer's support grant. Does the Department have any figures on how much those people are above the means test as it stands? What would it take, money-wise, to bring those people into getting the carer's allowance? We know and have met many such people. They are in need of a weekly payment but currently they are losing out, although they are getting the carer's support grant. I would be very interested to hear if the Department has any idea about those approximately 6,000 families losing out because they are above the means test now.

With regard to the community employment and rural social schemes, I was very interested to hear the remark made that nobody will have to leave a community employment scheme unless a replacement is found. Who determines that? We are all aware of the great work that those individuals do on the ground, whether with the GAA club, the local community hall or wherever they work. They have built years of experience in that regard. What training will determine the person who is coming to replace them? Are we looking at a position that if somebody becomes available, the person who has worked in a role for many years would be gone overnight because there is a person who can replace the person in question, even if that person is not trained? It is a very important question and a very important point for community employment schemes. It is one brought up with me continuously. Some of the people coming may not be suitable or have the experience or training to fill that position. It is something that needs to be answered.

One big question being raised about community employment schemes now is that sponsors have to raise funds for materials. Are there plans to increase the material grants available under community employment schemes? It is a major issue for those schemes.

The figures provided in the opening statement indicate there are 3,500 free community employment schemes given the money available now and up to 2,000 free rural social schemes. The figures indicate there are 19,000 people on those and there could be 22,500 people on community employment schemes. The question I asked on the previous day and the question I am asking today is what attempt the Department is making to encourage young people to take up such schemes. We are all aware here of the age cohort of people on community employment and rural social schemes to the extent they can be on such schemes. What attempts are being made to encourage young people to become involved with their communities?

With many of the communities I deal with, the persons involved are of an age where it is a worry as to whether they may be able to continue. We need young people to get involved in the community. Given the massive unemployment figures we have among our young people, is the Department aware of this? What attempts are being made by the Department to ensure young people get involved?

My final question relates to the community employment scheme supervisor pension. Could we get an update on where that stands? Is the Department considering any pay increase because it has been so long since supervisors have had a pay increase? A stakeholder forum was mentioned but when was the last time the Department met union representatives as part of that? Is that to be part of the stakeholder forum?

Ms Geraldine Hurley

I will answer some of those questions before passing over to my colleague, Mr. Kieran. The Senator asked about finding replacements and we have a process in place that my colleague will outline. Where a replacement has not been found, a contract would be extended. We must remember the purpose of community employment and Tús is to train the long-term unemployed person. The persons coming in require that support and training; it is the intervention from community employment. They would not have the same skills as a person who is leaving because that person has had the benefit of that work experience, training and intervention. Schemes are funded to upskill people and give them work experience. There are challenges for schemes when new people come in but that is the purpose of schemes in going back to their original activation purpose.

During the pandemic, there was significant concern about the increase in unemployment among young people, given the potential long-term impact for people who are unemployed at crucial stages of their lives and careers. Thankfully, unemployment levels among young people have dropped significantly. The unemployment rate is now below 5% which is lower than before the pandemic. It is crucial that every support is given to young people who are unemployed to ensure they do not become long-term unemployed. The EU youth guarantee is in place in terms of the intervention. Employment supports are provided by our Intreo offices ensuring that the range of suitable supports are available to young people. Those supports include reskilling, any courses that are provided through the education and training boards, ETBs, or other sectors and our support programmes. If people are still unemployed after 12 months, they can move into community employment schemes. Our objective is to try to ensure that cohort in particular do not get into a situation whereby they move into long-term unemployment. Many young people were employed in the sectors most impacted by the pandemic and unemployment in that group increased to well over 20% but thankfully has now come back to more normal levels. They are a priority group across our employment support schemes. There are specific commitments aimed at that group in Pathways for Work, as well as the EU youth guarantee.

At the end of last year, there was agreement between the Government and the unions representing CE supervisors and assistant supervisors on the long-standing issues arising from a Labour Court recommendation in 2008. That was agreed at the end of December. We are now putting in place the administrative arrangements to make a once-off ex gratia payment to eligible CE supervisors and assistant supervisors. Those are people who have retired since 2008 and, going forward, people will receive that amount on their retirement. We had to put in place some administrative arrangements in that regard. We will be sending out the application forms to the first group of people in the coming weeks. Once we get those back, we hope to process them as quickly as possible and issue the payments. The total package agreed will cost approximately €24 million. Approximately 2,500 supervisors and assistant supervisors will benefit, of whom 700 will benefit immediately and the others will benefit on retirement, if I have those figures correct. That is progressing. It is a priority for us to issue those payments.

The operational forum that met during the course of the pandemic was overarching across all three schemes. It made sure that other schemes, such as drug schemes, were also represented. Ministers attended the forum. That was for an exchange of views on operational issues and did not deal with human resource or policy issues. We are now engaging with sector-specific groups and will start to re-energise those discussions in the near future. We met with unions representing the RSS and two supervisors in April. We are now revising the terms of reference for those exchanges and will be doing the same on the CE side. Work is ongoing with the unions as we look at the wider issues. The point is that the State is not the employer of CE supervisors or any of the other supervisors so all those discussions are in that context. We are not the employer.

I will pass to Mr. Kieran who will deal with issues relating to the material grant and training.

Mr. Tony Kieran

I will revert briefly to consider the extensions. As we said earlier, roughly 600 extensions have been granted so far to allow people to stay on schemes. Those extensions are granted on the basis that the sponsors have advertised the post because as Ms Hurley said, it is an effort to get long-term unemployed people back into activation and training. When the new people come in, part of the role of the supervisor is to work out training and development plans with them. I take the point the Senator made about losing people who are well trained up and skilled at what they are doing, and who know what they are doing, and their being replaced by people who do not know what they are doing. That has always been the case and is a part of the progression.

On the training grants that are available, every scheme is given a grant of €250 per participant. As the committee knows, there are differences in that people over the age of 55 do not have to engage in training. The full grant is available to the scheme to use for anybody who avails of it. We encourage everybody to take up training opportunities. Opportunities with the ETBs are also available. Many of our schemes access training through the ETBs and other facilities that are out there. There is flexibility in that regard. There is enough money available to provide the training that needs to be done.

The Department makes a contribution towards the costs of materials for the schemes. There is a variation in the rates, which has been raised at the committee in recent weeks. There was some talk about standardising the rate. There is rationale for the variation in rates. Some of the sponsors are income-generating and do not apply for high levels of payment. There are cases where the rates of payment are very low. That is with the agreement of the sponsors because they are income-generating and do not need higher rates. However, where a scheme or a sponsor has difficulty, we conduct a review in conjunction with the local community development officer and our central areas. We will review and look at the rates. We are conscious of some of the costs that are impacting people now. I am sure the Senator is well aware of them.

Mr. Rónán Hession

I thank the Senator for the questions, one of which referred to the housing adaptation grant. I am not aware that we have been consulted directly on that although my team on the disability policy side is engaged in a plethora of interdepartmental groups and the issue may well have arisen in one of those forums. We certainly have membership of the national disability inclusion strategy steering group, which is the main forum where stakeholders and other Departments do their discussions of business around disability. One of my team is our lead representative and the matter may have come up in that forum but I am not aware of anything specific so I will not improvise in that regard.

The 6,000 people who get the carer's support grant but not carer's allowance do not have to report their income to us and we do not know what they are earning or what level would bring them in, which I think is the meaning behind the Senator's question. We know there are approximately 8,000 people on carer's allowance who are getting a reduced rate. These are people who have means to declare so they are above the threshold but the threshold tapers down to a particular point. There are approximately 8,000 people on that rate.

I think I have responded to everything the Senator asked of me. I will come back to Deputy Ó Cuív who asked earlier about statistics. I will share those statistics so they are there for the record. The Deputy asked about farm assist and said that fewer people on the farm assist payment have adult dependants and child dependants now than would have been the case previously. That tells us something about their stage of life, that is, they are older, etc. That appears to be the case. In 2011, there were just over 5,000 adult dependants and just over 8,000 child dependants on farm assist. In 2020, those figures were down to 2,200 adult dependants and 3,200 child dependants. Those figures were included in our published annual statistics report, which is on our website. There is a full breakdown for all the intervening years. If there is any further detail required, we are certainly happy to provide it.

Deputy Claire Kerrane

I had to step out of the meeting so I apologise if my questions have been answered already. I have some very brief follow-ups. In March, the Minister of State, Deputy Joe O'Brien, told me there were 2,969 people on the RSS, of whom 1,493 will not be impacted, which leaves 1,476 who will be.

Ms Hurley stated there are 2,890 on the rural social scheme, RSS. For clarity, I ask her to confirm the number who will be impacted by the six-year rule from next year on. Similarly, how many of the more than 19,000 people on the community employment, CE, scheme will be impacted by the six-year rule from next year?

The review of the rural social scheme, which is important, is due to commence and be completed this year. I am concerned in respect of the near future. It is difficult to determine. Will the review be carried out? Will it be completed? I acknowledge it is not a review of the six-year rule but, rather, the scheme itself. However, as these changes, if they go ahead, will have a massive impact from next year, will the rural social scheme be reviewed this year?

Ms Geraldine Hurley

The figures I quoted are the ones I have but I will check them just to make sure. I will revert to the Deputy to ensure there is no confusion in that regard. Our figures are that approximately 400 people would benefit immediately. Those are 400 people who are over 60 and to whom the 2017 rule would apply. That reduced the numbers to whom it would apply.

I am not sure I understand the Deputy's question relating to CE figures.

Deputy Claire Kerrane

In that case, I will put the question again. If we know that 1,000 people, or whatever the figure is, who are on RSS now will be impacted by the six-year rule, how many people on CE will be impacted by it?

Ms Geraldine Hurley

At the end of May, there were just over 19,000 people on CE. The six-year rule applies there differently. That is the lifetime limit on it. I do not think we currently have a figure for how many people leave having reached that point but we can look for that figure. I do not think we have it to hand today. The big outflow at the moment is the people whose contracts were extended and who are now starting to leave. They may have stayed on CE for longer than the normal limits. The limit is normally three years. A change was introduced last year whereby anybody over the age of 55 who started on the CE scheme before 2017 can stay on it. That may be the provision to which the Deputy is referring.

Deputy Claire Kerrane

Not particularly. I am just seeking a rough figure, if possible.

Ms Geraldine Hurley

We will look at those figures and revert to the Deputy.

On the review of the RSS, I am conscious of the remarks of Deputy Ó Cuív in respect of reviews. As I stated, Ministers are looking generally at a range of proposals to deal with these issues relating to vacancies across all schemes. The intention, in accordance with the recommendation of the report of the interdepartmental group, is to also look at wider issues relating to RSS. I am not yet sure whether that review will be completed by the end of the year because there will be resource implications and there are other issues under consideration in that regard. I cannot give that commitment but it is intended to get that work done, whether in the current structure or a different structure.

Deputy Claire Kerrane

I thank Ms Hurley.

Senator Eugene Murphy

I will be brief because, as I remarked to Deputy Naughten, most of the questions I intended to ask have already been put by Deputy Kerrane, the Chairman and other members. As Deputy Kerrane is aware, I have been significantly involved with communities for many years.

As regards the Tús scheme, there is a small cohort of people who, for whatever reason, cannot hold down a job that starts at 8 a.m. or 9 a.m. and ends at 5 p.m. I am not speaking about lazy people. It might be for family reasons or due to anxiety. One of the things I have noticed is that through the incredible work of supervisors, many of those people have had a life in recent years. I am sure Deputy Kerrane would say the same thing. Once they are trained in over the course of a couple of months - at times it is not simple to get people interested - they seem to take a significant interest in the work they are doing. Whether it is Tidy Towns, helping with caring or whatever else, they really do a good job. They would tell the committee that their life changes. In that regard and in the context of unemployment, there is a small cohort of people I would not like to see left out just because they could not link into a job in a local shop or factory. Are our guests conscious of that? I am sure they are. Can they understand from where I am coming? I have seen this with my own eyes and heard it from people who have been employed on schemes.

The issue with Tús is that it is too short a scheme. That issue has been raised already this morning. As the supervisors would tell us, it takes up to three months to get people into a routine but then their time is up before they really start doing the work. I would like that to be taken into account. There should be an understanding that there is a small group of people who just cannot cope. Sometimes it is down to family circumstances. They may need to look after a parent, aunt, uncle, brother or sister and just cannot get away from their house.

Deputy Denis Naughten resumed the Chair.

Senator Eugene Murphy

I refer to farm assist. I know I told the Chair I would not come in on this. Is anyone being turned down for farm assist? What wriggle room is there if a person is very close to qualifying for it? If our guests do not have those figures today, I ask that they be sent on to me. Ms Hurley stated there were 4,770 on the scheme. Are there many people who are just outside the qualification lines falling by the wayside?

Ms Geraldine Hurley

On the latter question, I am not sure whether we have the numbers.

Mr. Rónán Hession

We do not have the figures to hand in terms of the refusal rate but the flow onto the scheme has not been high. If anything, it is an existing cohort that has been ageing out over time. It has become a smaller scheme over time.

The issue of certain Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine schemes that are not covered by the means test was raised earlier. My colleague Mr. Kieran alluded to this. In other words, applicants were being assessed in full, whereas the farm assist means test takes account of various agriculture schemes, as members are aware. They are encompassed in the means test. In the most recent budget, this was expanded significantly. The main issue flagged to us previously was that people were missing out was because that list had not been updated. We have done that now and that should catch those who have been drawn to our attention as being just beyond the threshold. That should help in that regard. I will find out the refusal rate. We can feed that back through the clerk.

Ms Geraldine Hurley

We appreciate the value of the work CE schemes do for the benefit of participants and, obviously, the services. Much of the work we do with schemes relates to that and identifying people it would suit. As regards those who, on completion of Tús, still find progressing onto open labour market opportunities to be a challenge and need further support, I go back to my earlier point that CE is an option for them. The other supports that can be provided through Intreo services and our general employment supports are also available to them. There are wider supports available to those people on completion of Tús.

Mr. Tony Kieran

I have been meeting with some of the people who work to me and are out meeting with scheme participants. They are very aware of the work the supervisors do in getting people such as those to whom the Senator referred moving and back active in their communities, working on Tús or whatever. I am aware that we are making a big effort with the people who are leaving Tús and have had extensions already. We are making them aware of the opportunities and options in CE because we do have places available.

If there is further training and that is a progression for them, we will look at that. It could be in similar jobs and roles in their communities, as well.

Chairman

Colleagues have raised issues about CE, Tús and RSS and their operation. I will come back to the issue of carer's allowance, in the context of national Carers Week and the request that we received from the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine regarding the need for flexibility for farm participants in receipt of the allowance. Deputy Ó Cuív put it quite well earlier regarding the availability of the farmer. Usually, the farmer is taking care of an older person who is in the house with him or her. The farmer is, at worst, farming in the vicinity of the home.

Surely, with the development of technology and the roll-out of 4G technology, which is pretty much universal throughout the country, it would be possible to have a situation in which, even when a farmer is away from the family home, he or she can still continue to monitor the older person and can be there within minutes should he or she fall or need to go to the bathroom. Should we not, in circumstances such as that, use technology to provide that level of reassurance that the Department, quite rightly, requires in the provision of full-time care, while providing the flexibility that would assist smallholders, in particular? That is usually who we are talking about in the context of the carer's allowance.

With regard to flexibility, an issue raised in evidence we received from Family Carers Ireland related to the number of full-time students who are being knocked off the carer's allowance. Many of them were young carers who were caring, usually for a parent, while they were in second level. However, once they register for a third level course, they are automatically knocked off. Surely there could be some flexibility with hybrid learning. My understanding, from the evidence that we received, is that not only are the teaching hours being calculated, the reading hours are also being calculated in meeting the 18-and-a-half-hour threshold.

The point Deputy Ó Cuív made was that, in many instances, it is about having someone physically present in or close to the house. A student can as easily read a book online or a hard copy at home in his or her own sitting room as in the library. In fairness, most third level institutions will try to facilitate a young carer in every way they can and there is now an awful lot more adaptability with remote learning. Surely, the Department should take a more flexible approach to that. The point was made in evidence to us that the student could be at home reading an academic book and be denied the carer's allowance. However, if the student is at home reading fiction, he or she is eligible for a carer's allowance. That does not seem right. I ask the Department representatives to address that.

What I will say about the 18-and-a-half-hour threshold will not come as a surprise to Mr. Hession, because I am blue in the face at this stage with regard to this. We have a small cohort of people who are the life-carers of children with a disability who are either in an education or training centre during the day. They can only work up to 18 and a half hours outside of the home. We still have the income threshold, as a limiting factor in how much they can work, but there should be flexibility beyond those 18 and a half hours in those small number of instances where the person to whom they are providing care is not physically present in the house and is either in school or in a training centre, purely from the point of view of mental health and of being able to engage with a workforce, because, sadly, in many instances, they will have to re-engage with the workforce at some future date. Those three anomalies, if addressed, would deal with a number of the grievances that we have heard in evidence over the past number of weeks.

Mr. Rónán Hession

With regard to people who are farming and their having the ability, through their phone or otherwise, to still maintain contact, we are not supervising or scrutinising the detail of how people spend their time, as such. The payment is there for people who are not able to work because of their caring responsibilities and to provide an income support in the absence of that ability to work. Where a person is still able to work because of technology and their caring responsibilities do not prevent them from working, that is not really what the carer's allowance is there to do as an income support. That is not to undervalue or downplay their caring responsibilities play in any way, but to explain that the carer's allowance is not a payment for caring, as such. It is an income support that kicks in because people have a limited ability to take on full-time employment. The income support is to recognise that such are their caring responsibilities that they are not able to avail of full-time work. It slightly flips it a bit. Rather than saying that technology has enabled them to manage both and therefore, they have been able to do more.

Under most of our schemes, people in full-time education are not eligible for income-support help, apart from some exceptions, of which the PUP was one. We have had this discussion in our engagement with carers, through the carers forum, in terms of breaking down how people spend their time, travel to and from full-time education, study time and course work. In running schemes, we have to try to set what we believe are reasonable boundaries. We are always talking to carers about what is the lived reality. Where a person is engaged in and has a full-time commitment to education, our scheme would say that means the person is not full-time available for caring.

However, I accept the Chair's point about young carers. There is, in the discussion around carers, perhaps a belated recognition on our part about where young carers fit into that. We have run a programme through the Dormant Accounts Fund over the past couple of years to fund some projects to help young carers. We had to say to a group at a carers forum a couple of years ago that it was right, in that we tend to think of the carer being the same age or older than the person for whom he or she is caring. Sometimes, one is a bit out of touch and needs to hear that.

In terms of flexibility for carers, where the arrangements for the person for whom he or she are caring are such that the carer has some time in the day to themselves, the move to 18 and a half hours was influenced to a degree by the arguments made by people such as those. Some 18 and a half hours is a half-time pattern. If someone was to do mornings only in the Civil Service, he or she would work 18 and a half hours. It allows people that scope, where they have that time in which their caring responsibilities and the structure of their day have changed, as the person is in some other day arrangement such as employment, education or other activity. That was the thinking behind it. It is always a balance.

The move from 15 hours to 18.5 hours is the first time that was done in 15 years, so it is a case of "suck it and see".

The scheme fits into the wider architecture of the social welfare system. Above that, different thresholds kick in for other schemes and there is a bit of dissonance between the schemes, for example, the working family payment. We have to watch those. We are trying to make the wider social welfare system coherent. In recent years, we have tried to allow flexibilities through the means test, the change to 18.5 hours and the capital disregard. We have also funded a few training programmes the carers' organisations are operating and which are delivering very good results for carers who are ready to go back to work or have been caring for a long time and whose confidence or skills need a boost. It is not a "Yes" or "No" question or answer, if the Chairman knows what I mean, but something we try to keep under review in the context of the wider decisions we have to make about how schemes work.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Hession. I am sure this is an issue the committee will revisit. Mr. Hession raised an issue I am going to raise with Ms Hurley. Members may correct me but as far as I can recall, the CE supervisors, in their evidence to the committee, made a point in respect to training and the training allowance that participants could go on a training course that would assist with the managing of the scheme but supervisors could not get approval from the Department to go on a training course that would assist them in operating the CE schemes they were managing. That seems to be a perverse situation. The witness in question had never used the training allowance up to that point and was then refused by the Department access to a training allowance that would have helped that person to comply with the statutory requirements and the requirement laid down by the Department in operating the CE scheme. The supervisor was refused access yet the participant being supervised was approved for access. Surely there needs to be some flexibility? We should not have situations where CE supervisors are refused access to a training course that is focused on the delivery of the programme they are operating.

Ms Geraldine Hurley

If the Chairman has further details on that specific case, I would like to look into it.

Chairman

We will send Ms Hurley the transcript of the meeting.

Ms Geraldine Hurley

I am not saying that did not happen but I would be surprised. It should not happen because, for the reasons the Chairman outlined, it does not make sense. It is in the interest of the operation of the entirety of CE and other schemes that supervisors have the capacity to carry out their role as they are accountable for large amounts of State funding, and that they are supported in doing that. One of the ways to do that is through training and development. If someone was turned down for funding for a scheme like that even though the budget was available, I would be slightly surprised. I am not saying it would not happen because, as the Chairman knows, there can sometimes be incidents where rules may not be applied in the manner expected. I will be happy to look into that case. I agree with the Chairman it makes no sense and it is not something I would stand over.

Mr. Tony Kieran

I noted that on the transcript and I think the point being made by the person was that they were in a position to authorise training for the participants but when it came to themselves they needed different forms and they found it a bit too much and different questions were being asked. Part of what we are doing-----

Chairman

Ultimately, the person was refused.

Mr. Tony Kieran

Yes. I think in the particular case the person ultimately chose not to do it. There was another course the person mentioned that was much more expensive and they were offered a grant that did not make it possible for them to take it up.

Chairman

Yes.

Mr. Tony Kieran

I do not wish to get into specific cases, to be fair to everybody. I now have responsibility for both the policy on and delivery of the scheme. I have a number of managers working around the country who manage the delivery. They work to me as well. We will look at how we streamline all of those activities and if there are wrinkles, as somebody mentioned earlier, we will iron them out. However, we are also looking at how we provide for skilling up the supervisor cohort because that is important. We will look at more inventive ways of using maybe the supervisor training fund so if courses are found that are suitable and will give supervisors skills in the particular areas they need, we will look at how we can fund those or what we can do to fund them.

Chairman

That is good. I thank Mr. Kieran very much.

I thank the officials for attending and for their constructive and positive engagement with the committee. We will shortly give further consideration to this matter and it is our intention to present a report on our deliberations to the Minister, Deputy Humphreys, and to Dáil Éireann thereafter, on the wider matters within our work programme. We will hope the committee's deliberations and recommendations will be taken on board by the Department and considered by the Minister. Go raibh míle maith agaibh go léir.

The joint committee adjourned at 11.57 a.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 22 June 2022.