Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Rural Social Scheme.

Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 27 April 2004

Tuesday, 27 April 2004

Ceisteanna (36)

Seymour Crawford

Ceist:

99 Mr. Crawford asked the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs when the rural employment scheme announced by him on 3 December 2003 will be brought into place; if this scheme will be run separately from community employment schemes at local level and so have two different supervisors; if a farmer’s child who is on disability, even though he or she may have no herd number of his or her own, will be eligible given that the district veterinary offices are reluctant to give second herd numbers; if this scheme will be up and running in the summer of 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11714/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí ó Béal (9 píosaí cainte)

The rural social scheme aims to provide certain services of benefit to rural communities by harnessing the skills and talents available among low-income farmers and fishermen, and provide income support to low-income farmers and fishermen who are in receipt of specified, primarily long-term, social welfare payments. I envisage that the arrangements for the scheme will be put in place during the coming weeks. The scheme is distinct from the community employment scheme which aims to provide training to allow participants re-enter the labour force. Both schemes can operate in the same area but with different management arrangements. Care will be taken at local level to ensure that there is no overlap or wasting of resources in a particular area.

The scheme is aimed primarily at farmers who are in receipt of long-term social welfare payments, but the rules will admit low-income fishermen also. To be eligible to participate, an individual should be in receipt of farm assist, unemployment assistance or unemployment benefit if previously on community employment, or disability allowance and have a herd number.

It is envisaged that up to 2,500 places will be provided on the basis of the criteria outlined. A review of eligibility and impact of the scheme will be undertaken subsequent to its operation over 12 months having regard to demand and available resources and the question of possibly broadening the eligibility criteria for participation in the scheme.

This scheme was announced on 3 December. It is now the end of April and the Minister says arrangements for the scheme will be put in place in the coming weeks. The reply is not that different from his reply to my previous question on this issue six weeks ago. Does the Minister accept that this scheme was thought of the day before the budget without any real research or planning being put into it? Does he accept that the fact it will be run in small local communities separately from the community employment scheme means that extra expense must be involved? Can it not be run under the same structures? Will there be funding for these workers to deliver jobs? I am told that, as yet, funding has not been suggested for the labour that will be undertaken. That is another major issue.

I asked the Minister a pertinent question whether, in the light of difficulties with district veterinary officers, a son or daughter of a farmer, if he or she has a disability problem, would be able to avail of the scheme without a herd number. As the Minister knows, it is almost impossible now for a son or daughter to obtain a herd number.

It is important to recognise that to try to run the two schemes as one would be to have a trainee and work scheme under the one umbrella. They would not be compatible and therefore separate structures will be needed. We will try to co-ordinate them in such a way so that there is no unnecessary duplication. However, two different jobs are in hand.

Funding is in place and I am ready to proceed. I can also confirm that I brought a memorandum to Government and that has been approved. It is fundamentally the same scheme as was prepared prior to the budget. Some technical difficulties had to be resolved and discussions have taken place in this regard. There have never been problems with the structure of the scheme, but there were issues about who would carry out the recruitment tasks, pay the cheques every week etc., and responsibility at that level. I am in the final stages of determining those issues and am hopeful that the scheme can be up and running in three weeks.

The final question is relevant, fair and good. I am aware of this difficulty. It does not apply only to people on disability allowance. For reasons to do with means testing, many older people have held on to ownership of the herd number. One will find a young person living on the farm — maybe not in the same house — who does much of the day-to-day farming. We all know the reasons for that. In the short term, the applicant or partner — the adult dependent on social welfare — will be the only eligible person. My philosophy is that if something is begun with tight criteria, it is much easier to loosen them if one finds they are too tight. If, however, one begins with wider criteria and loopholes present themselves, it is much more difficult to row back. I will keep in mind the issue raised by the Deputy. It is a valid one. A person in the circumstances he outlined would not be eligible. However, it would be possible in such circumstances because the one great reason for not transferring herd numbers from older to younger people — something we have encouraged for years — would be taken away. In such situations what can happen is that the herd number may be transferred from the older person to the younger.

I believe that only a small number of people are in this category. I make no apology for saying that. I have a particular case in mind where a young man has been on FÁS schemes but cannot be allowed to continue. He is not capable of working a 40-hour week and this type of scheme would be ideal for him. We should try to be cognisant of this type of situation.

It is now nearly the end of April. Who will run this scheme? Who will pay the participants and will there have to be a hierarchy of personnel overseeing two or three people in a parish or whatever numbers are involved? We are tied down to the numbers on farm assist as being those who may enter the scheme. The number of parishes that may take it up is limited. Under community employment an overseer dealt with several different areas. How can we administrate this? It is necessary to have clear criteria because this has been happening since December.

We are in the final stages of sorting out who will pay. There were interdepartmental issues to be resolved and that has caused the delay. Anyone who has experience of the system understands that while one may know where one wants to go on a large scale, the detail always causes a delay. We are close to the end of the process and I hope we can get the scheme up and running very quickly.

I would like to see parish schemes, whereby a parish and its organisation will come together and create a scheme which would provide a critical mass of applicants. There would be a supervisor for that group but some might maintain sports or community facilities, tidy towns, day care and so on. That has been a de facto pattern under the community employment scheme even if that was not intended in the beginning. It might have been intended under the SES which was a work scheme. To an extent we are returning to the point at which the Deputy started. The CE schemes were not aimed at progression but work. Farmers are not unemployed and under the law they do not have to be seeking a job to receive their payments. That has always been recognised but they are underemployed and underearning.

Exactly.

It is about time we did something for them and used the many skills they have to provide a service in the community to provide us with services, which they are begging to do. By coincidence, I received a letter from my parish outlining a problem similar to that which the Deputy raised. I have, however, only 2,500 places no matter how I approach this and would prefer to start with limited criteria, which I can extend, than start with possible loopholes. I would like to get the project up and running and then I will take on board Deputy Crawford's valid point.

Will the Minister say when this will start and who will run it?

In two to three weeks I hope but there are some elements yet to put in place. We are considering the possibility of the Leader companies administering it at the intermediate layer because they cover all rural Ireland, unlike, for example, partnerships. My Department will carry the ultimate responsibility. There is a link with the Department of Social and Family Affairs because for the first time we are using the saving in social welfare as part of the funding for the scheme. That is a very rational and progressive step because it enables one Department to recognise the savings in another Department, from the taxpayers' point of view.

Barr
Roinn