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

I would like to take this from a high level. I ask the witnesses to confirm whether SIPTU has members involved in the Tús rural social scheme, RSS, as well as CE. I also wanted to put down a marker by stating that participation in schemes should be voluntary. Workfare and all those theories people sometimes have are madness. If people do not want to be somewhere, they are not doing much good for themselves and they are certainly not doing any good for that place.

On the other hand, let us presume somebody came to the Government tomorrow saying they had a good idea that would dramatically improve the mental health and well-being of all those who are unemployed. We know people who are unemployed suffer higher morbidity and mortality, go to the doctor more frequently and take more medicines. That is scientifically proven. I got that information from the medical people within the Department of Social Protection ten years ago and I doubt it has changed. Suppose this person said they had a plan that, at a very modest cost, would improve people's self-esteem and self-worth. That is what work and activity does for people who are unemployed. That is medically proven. As long as we can create useful positions for people, everybody who is long-term unemployed should have the opportunity to go on a scheme. That is why I asked about the Tús RSS in community employment. People should also be able to stay on a scheme unless someone is literally knocking the door down because they need the place. We should seek to create as many positions as possible because there are endless services to be provided across a massive range that we could not even dream of discussing here today. For example, how many community centres in this country are available and open from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m.? Staffing is often the issue there. That is something simple.

I would make a comment about repetitive work. I had this argument with the Department when I was Minister. Graveyards are not covered by CE schemes and I wanted the RSS to do them because graveyards are a very important issue, at least in rural Ireland. One of the arguments against that was that it was repetitive work, as the grass and weeds would grow again. I told the Department the story about Dean Swift and the boots. The story goes that Dean Swift was going out walking one morning and found out his servant had not cleaned the boots and they were all muddy. He called the servant in and asked him why he did not clean the boots. The servant asked what the point would be as when he came back that evening they would be all muddy again. Everything was fine and the dean said nothing. That evening there was no supper for the servant and he came in and asked the dean why he did not get any supper that night. The dean said asked what was the point, as he would give him supper tonight and he would only be back tomorrow looking for more. In other words, life is about repetition. All our lives are about repetition. There is no avoiding it. It would be strange if you went to Croke Park or the Aviva Stadium and somebody was not employed to repetitively clean the place, cut the grass and so on. Even this place would be a strange place if people did not do repetitive tasks everyday. I think we can dismiss that argument.

The original idea when we set up Tús was that CE should be an activation or training scheme, whereby when people became long-term unemployed they would be given intensive support to re-engage with the commercial workforce. Anybody who has worked on the ground or lived in the real world, as opposed to doing some rarefied administrative or academic work, knows there are people on these schemes who will never get commercial employment.

It does not mean they cannot do incredibly useful work in communities. If all the CE, Tús workers and so on stopped working in communities tomorrow, there would be shock about the effect it would have on society. They are unlikely to get commercial employment, however, which is a different matter. My view is that the first two or three years should be on a CE scheme that is very active, with good training funds and good access to self-progression. After a while, there will be people who need periodic training and upskilling in the job but who are unlikely to get full-time employment. The idea was they would then move on to a work scheme that would not involve intensive training, where I think most over-55s more naturally fit. That would be called Tús, for want of a better word, or it could be another module of CE. I am not fussy about the top structure. It should suit the purpose rather than the purpose suiting the top structure. That way, as long as jobs could be created by different schemes, as many people could come into them as wanted to, since we have realised this is very beneficial and has saved a lot in the medical budget. The amount someone on CE gets in costs above somebody on unemployment benefits is very small.

This should be looked at freshly and rationally, in the way that people on the ground see it. My experience in politics was that the Government had a great activation idea. It said it would get everyone working and that if everyone really tried, they would get a commercial job. Communities looked at this differently and said this is a convenient way to have a win-win situation. People who are unlikely to get jobs are providing the most fantastic community services and, if they were not there, what would everyone do? In my experience here, never the twain shall meet in the mindset of officialdom compared with the reality on the ground. I believe there is a modest cost with huge benefits for everybody who wants to be involved.

I will touch briefly on the administrative structure. Unfortunately, people work for the rainy day where somebody has a claim or issue of some sort, with some dispute happening. Paperwork and keeping records are part of the modern world. We can eliminate some, organise some better, and automate some, but it exists. When something goes wrong, everyone asks if there are records. There are 847 schemes. I understand that means 847 companies with employer responsibilities for audits and so on. Tús or the rural social scheme, RSS, have a different model. There are about 30 partnerships throughout the country, which are the employer. There are a small number and they are well resourced. They have the heavy responsibility for employment law, looking after insurance, looking after audits and so on. Instead of having 847 audits, there are now just 30. They are bigger bodies. The idea was to concentrate all that bureaucracy in well-financed, well-resourced partnerships. In that model, the local sponsor and the supervisors propose the work programme and inevitably the partnership or, in the case of the Gaeltacht, the údarás, would agree it. We need to have a debate on this. It seems to me that putting that kind of burden, responsibility for employment law, insurance and everything else on a small community company is a terrible burden and a terrible amount of bureaucracy, which is repeated 847 times. We need to see if we can simplify that. I am following up on that because two models are running at the same time.

I take it that active negotiations or claims are going on regarding wages. One thing that is often overlooked in these schemes is that if people have some self-employment or minor source of income, or even just money in the bank, the Department of Social Protection does a means test on it. Single people with no dependants can claim the full €22.50. It is not a lot and they can claim the full €230.50 per week. If they have a dependant, whether an adult or a child, and any small self-employment income, the Department will take that off them at a 100% rate. It will reduce their payment by the amount they have in self-employed income and they still get €22.50 for the week's effort. I have heard of people on half a million euro a year complain about tax rates. They are taxed at around 50%, including PRSI, USC and so on, but this is taxation of the poor at a 100% rate. Has that issue been raised with the union by the participants? It seems to me to be the absolute worst case of effective taxation, if one can call means testing effective taxation, which it really is. It is just the State clawing back money, which is what taxation is. Have the witnesses raised that issue with the Department with regard to encouraging the workers or their dependants to get employment, better themselves and improve their lifestyle without being penalised in the most draconian way for doing so?