Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I will come to that in a minute. It is the third item on my list.

As far as I am concerned, we need to arrange for the training to be carried out and to get the required people. I do not know if this is still the case but in the original rural social scheme, RSS, the working time did not have to be from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. if the workers agreed. People used to come to football pitches at 7 p.m. or 8 p.m. to clean up the dressing rooms after matches and so on. As long the 19.5 hours per week were provided, we were flexible. If a mixture of Tús and voluntary workers is needed to do certain things, by having Tús handle safety for example, so be it. It should at least be written into the scheme that it is acceptable for the local Tús, RSS or community employment, CE, worker to work those hours, which is when people are free in the evening, rather than the standard ones, if he or she is willing.

The next issue is how all of this is funded. I do not care who funds it because I know one thing; the only one group of people who can fund it are the taxpayers. State agencies are like the Nile Delta now. Funding comes in from one source and then breaks up into thousands of streams across all the agencies. Sometimes there are wars between the agencies but it is all State money anyway. It must be voted on by the Oireachtas no matter which agency funds it. The agencies must decide among themselves who will fund this and get it funded. As I said, volunteers contribute enough by giving their time and effort, without having to fund equipment and so on as well.

The next issue is insurance. It seems that today every State agency is an adviser. The advice is not to make that agency liable. Údarás na Gaeltachta, county councils and all these bodies are always looking for indemnity. I know what happens. Someone unfortunately gets injured - it does happen - and the person suing will sue everybody in sight. He or she will probably be not too bothered about the individual concerned, as he or she will not get the money that way. Rather, the litigant will sue the local community group, the CE scheme, the local partnership, the seed company, the county council and anyone he or she can sue. My understanding is often the award must be paid by strongest financial entity. In this case it is irrelevant. If the case is won, assuming that the individual involved in the injury is not liable, the taxpayer ends up funding the award, through whichever stream of the Nile Delta. These concerns must be cross-indemnified in whatever way necessary. One would imagine that justice would mean the liability should lie with whatever party is culpable, as opposed to the strongest player. If an employee makes a mistake, it is the employer who takes the rap. That is the system. However, assuming the individual will not be held liable as long as they are covered by insurance, the bodies involved here must decide these indemnities will work.

It should be simply sorted out between the groups. Instead, body A demands that the weakest body, that is, the community body, gets indemnity from body B or else gives body A indemnity. This is despite the fact that body A, a local authority, partnership or whatever, is much stronger. Things should be arranged for recognised community groups in order that it is clear that the indemnities are part of the package. They should be agreed. It is ridiculous to ask a community group to go through a local authority to get indemnity. The community group is the weakest player in this. It would be much better if the State arranged matters so that if it is satisfied with the standard of a community group, it agrees a package of indemnities and funds it accordingly.

I see four steps in this regard. A working group should address these four steps systematically. First, what is needed should be ascertained; manual, training equipment, flexibility in the Tús scheme, RSS and so on, and indemnities. The working group should produce a clear ten-page leaflet on what must be done. That would resolve the problem. I am absolutely convinced that the one thing that cannot be done is for the law or safety standards to be ignored. To do that we would have to come back here and change the law. As long as the law is the law, the law is the law. Any injured person will go to court on the basis of the law, not on the basis of any arrangement.