Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for coming before us. It is important that we hear from the supervisors on the ground about Tús and the rural social scheme. All the opening statements contained practical suggestions, which shows the benefit of listening to the people on the ground because they know the schemes best. I hope this will play into the upcoming review of the rural social scheme.

The witnesses mentioned the age profile of participants in the rural social scheme. Could they elaborate on that? What is the current age profile? They mentioned the struggle to fill quotas. I know their briefing documentation mentioned the national quota being 3,350. At the end of March, when we raising the issue of the review and asked when it will happen - we still do know when it will happen - the Minister of State, Deputy Joe O'Brien, confirmed that 2,969 people were on the rural social scheme and that 1,493 of those will not be impacted by the six-year rule. That leaves over 1,400 people who will be impacted by the six-year rule. This is almost half of the entire quota for the rural social scheme so that is of significant concern. In fairness, the Minister of State has said that as part of that review, he is very aware of the issues raised concerning the six-year rule, which is important. The work being undertaken by this committee is timely and I hope we can feed into that review.

The figures are a cause of concern. In respect of those figures and the impact of the six-year rule, what do they mean on the ground? If the figures are correct and the full quota is 3,350, with 2,969 people on the scheme, that means there are 531 vacancies throughout the State. I imagine the impact of that is that services are not able to run as they should, which has consequences. I am sure all members agree it is essential for the key stakeholders, namely, the witnesses, to feed into the review and be heard in respect of it. This is critical. There is no point in having the review if that does not happen.

Regarding Tús, could the witnesses speak about the challenge involved in the referrals and the referral process? I have heard of places that receive a list from the Department and ring people on that list. Some of them will not bother taking up a place on Tús and do not actually have to, which is unusual because in many other schemes, people have to take up a place. Will the witnesses elaborate on that and the level of refusals? Is this as it seems?

The idea of going from one year to two years should be considered because one year is not much time. The organisations represented provide a lot of wraparound supports, as does the rural social scheme, and they are really important. It is not the case that it is "just a job, any job" for everyone. People require an awful lot more in some cases and it is not just a job.

Will the witnesses also explain the difference between the Tús supervisors and the co-ordinating supervisors and the numbers in each? The independent evaluation is a fair ask and should be undertaken. I has asked that Tús be included in the review. This is not on the table so an independent evaluation of that programme versus community employment would be important. Given that job clubs are more or less gone now or will be gone in a couple of months and that model is changing drastically, the rural social scheme and Tús are more important than ever for that community-based model. That is so important because there will be so few schemes left with a community basis.

Regarding the pension issue, it has been said by both the rural social scheme and Tús representatives that they do not have an occupational pension scheme. Does SIPTU seek a deal for the rural social scheme and Tús similar to the one that has been done for the community employment scheme? The issue with the Labour Court recommendation has at last been resolved and while the workers in question have not been paid yet, that will happen. Is it SIPTU's intention to pursue that? I know it probably pursued it all along but will it pursue it more vocally?

All the witnesses mentioned the lack of a forum. That is important. Regarding the Department, the Irish Local Development Network, the trade unions and the tripartite forum, what is the issue with the Department regarding why that collapsed or did not work? What did the Department say to the witnesses when they raised that?