Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim buíochas le Mr. Egan agus a fhoireann as ucht teacht isteach inniu. Tá sé tábhachtach go bhfuil an plé seo á dhéanamh againn sula dtagann an tuairisc chun cinn. It is important that we have this discussion, I hope, before finalisation of the policy report and that we have some input or that the views expressed today will have a bearing on what will be presented. In a way, it is pity that it has taken this length of time, but it is important that we get the community employment scheme correct. There has been a debate for a long time about the role of community employment. It is good to see that there is an acknowledgement of its two roles - to help the long-term unemployed to gain employment and to support organisations in providing services for communities. Often the second role is forgotten. It appears that it is forgotten by some of the Department's staff who are dealing with community employment programmes and appear to be continuously harassing some of the programmes in my constituency with regard to progression and so forth. Perhaps Mr. Egan might remind staff who are dealing with community employment programmes which are struggling with issues I will outline shortly that one of the primary roles of the scheme in many cases is to support organisations providing services for communities.

I received replies to two parliamentary questions from the Minister yesterday. Perhaps Mr. Egan might elaborate on them. I asked that consideration be given to extending eligibility to people under 25 years of age. The reason is the huge growth in the level of youth unemployment in recent years. This group is not being captured by any similar scheme which can guarantee them additional employment and a work placement where they are not being exploited.

In the other question I asked that consideration be given to extending the availability of extensions. In the past the community employment scheme was available to a number of people for two and three years to ensure they could progress at the other end. Mr. Egan states in his presentation that last year 19% entered employment and that a further 7% went into further education. He has correctly pointed out, given the context, that this is very good. However, it also proves the need in many cases for an additional year. According to the reply I received yesterday, the extra year is restricted to 10%; therefore, it is not available to many people who need an extra year or even six months to complete a training course. I urge that greater consideration be given to this aspect. That is one of the key points to emerged from the discussions I have had with community employment groups in my constituency, in which there is a concentration of special programmes supporting child care facilities. The budget and the timeframe, particularly in the case of child care services, do not allow people to gain the proper qualification to move on to the private sector or elsewhere. There are two issues involved. First, the time is not available to many of them anymore and, second, the budget cut announced earlier this year and confirmed with a slight change in the recent report is still substantial in the case of training and materials. The alternative is Tús, for which there is no training budget. This means that those who wish to follow a specific path of training and working in that environment have no options.

I have a number of other questions, but I will leave it at that for now in order that other members can ask their questions.