Written Answers Nos. 50-52
50. Deputy Willie Penrose asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection her views on correspondence (details supplied); if she will take steps to ensure that the age eligibility concession will be extended to all schemes; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [43423/14]
Amharc ar fhreagraThere has been significant demand to reduce the age eligibility to 21 years on Community Employment (CE) in the past three years, particularly since the cessation of double allowances which had the effect of reducing the number of participants on the One Parent Family Payment (OFP) and, in particular, the number of participants taking up childcare places on CE.
I am acutely aware of the need to accommodate long-term unemployed youth who need special supports to access training and work placements. In the circumstances, one childcare project in the Midlands North Division has been approved to allow limited access to their CE Childcare Programme for applicants 21 years of age or over. Twenty per cent of vacancies will be for applicants in this age group. This has been approved on a trial basis only and will be closely monitored by the Department. This programme necessitates the CE participant engaging in a FETAC Major Award and undertaking study in their own time, so it is demanding and requires commitment and dedication from the participant.
A final decision will be made on age eligibility across the CE scheme generally in due course.
52. Deputy Finian McGrath asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Social Protection the position regarding an application for a person (details supplied) in County Donegal to return to their position on a full-time basis; if such applications are dealt with, based on the date the application was first received; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [43436/14]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe Deputy will be aware that the staffing of my Department is limited by (i) the salary budget and (ii) the requirement to meet and maintain the Employment Control Framework figure established by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. In essence, any course of action which would increase staffing costs, including approval for an increase in hours of attendance for duty, must be avoided.
This position is reflected in the conditions attaching to the operation of the work-sharing scheme, which specifies that ‘Any proposal for change to current work patterns will be subject to management and budgetary constraints, including Government policy on numbers employed…. This is subject to the principle that the implementation and operation of the scheme is at the discretion of management, in the light of operational needs’.
Departmental staff are afforded the opportunity to participate in the Shorter Working Year scheme, and one of the conditions attaching to that scheme provides that a participant who opts to receive his or her salary on a pro-rata basis is precluded from amending his/her pattern of attendance for duty in the course of that Income Tax Year.
The person concerned submitted an application to resume full-time duties on 11 September 2013, and was, on that date, the fourth person, in order of date of application, in that location to do so. At that particular juncture, the focus was on a reduction in staffing as the number of staff exceeded the Employment Control Framework figure. The position was further complicated by the fact that the person concerned has, for the past five years, participated in the Shorter Working Year scheme. On each occasion the person concerned has opted to receive salary on a pro-rata basis and has, thus, precluded the possibility of amending the current pattern of attendance.
The person concerned was advised that, regrettably, the application to resume full-time duties could not be accommodated.
