Seán Canney (Galway East, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Although I am not a member of the committee, I feel passionate about the rural social schemes and what they do in communities. I am delighted to welcome Ms Macdonald, Mr. Larkin and Mr. Broderick from Galway Rural Development, which is based in my own constituency, as well as the other representatives. The impact the rural social schemes have had, since they were first initiated by the then Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, back in time, has been enormous in rural communities, first, for the communities themselves and, second, for the positivity this has created for participants and the network it has created across rural Ireland in terms of the work that is being done, the camaraderie that is there and the benefits people get.

I am going to divide my speaking time between two issues. My first point concerns the participants. I believe the six-year rule has reached its end of life, if one can call it that. That should now be taken out and everybody should be allowed to remain on a scheme for the full duration of their time. At the time when it was introduced in 2017, it was because there was demand to get into the scheme but, at this stage, the demand is for participants to be allowed to remain on the scheme. We need to adjust it. The year 2017 was five years ago and we have to review this and make the change.

The other issue I have come across is that nieces and nephews of farmers are excluded from becoming participants. In many cases, that is ruling out good people who could be part of the scheme. If the niece or nephew of a farmer were allowed to come on a scheme, that would enhance the numbers available and would also provide additional participants for the scheme.

We need to look at the participation of people with disabilities in the scheme to make sure we are bringing in people with disabilities and giving them a sense of purpose through an EmployAbility-type arrangement, which would be a first step towards getting work. It is not that this is job creation, but there is much that could be done for people with disabilities on the rural social schemes, and I know that at first hand. Those are the things we need to do and if a review is undertaken or if submissions are to be made, they should be considered.

There is an inequality with regard to the supervisors and Mr. Kane mentioned a 15% pay differential with CE supervisors. I am also conscious of the long road it took to get what was got out of the Department of Social Protection and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, which play one off against the other and put us back and over like a tennis ball when it comes to things like this, and that is being honest. I hear what Mr. Kane is saying. The direct route is to get somebody to sit down and independently look at the situation. That would be a highly sensible way to bring this to a head as quickly as possible so this anomaly is not going on for the next ten to 14 years, as the CE schemes were, only to get something at the end of it which was not exactly fair, although it was something.

With regard to eligibility, Mr. Broderick mentioned a case where somebody got a house and, although it could never be rented out, a notional income was put on that house by the Department of Social Protection’s mechanisms for creating that notional income. This meant a person had to leave the scheme. That house will never be rented and it will be passed on to a grandchild and that is in process but, in the meantime, the participant has been penalised. Overall, that is something we need to look at with the Department of Social Protection.

The big ask I get from participants is this. They are on the scheme and doing their work, and they are delighted to be at it, but when they sit down and think about it on a Sunday, after having dinner and while watching the match, or whatever, they ask, “What is in it for us apart from the participation?” The €25 a week is not real when we think of the benefits that are accruing to every community. Somebody mentioned meals on wheels and there is the Irish Wheelchair Association, cancer care services and all kinds of services that are benefiting enormously from this.

I do not have any questions other than to offer my total support to everybody who is here today as a witness to present the case. I will work with them, as will the Chairman and every member of the committee. What was set up as a very good scheme in 2003 needs to be re-calibrated to make it fit for purpose again for the next ten years. It would be timely to do it now. I thank the Chairman and the members for allowing me the time.