Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their opening statements. We are in a completely different place now as regards community schemes. Employers inform us that it is difficult to get people to fill any vacancies in the hospitality and farming sectors among others. These schemes still have an important role to play because there are people who will not be able to take their place in the normal working environment of mainstream employment for whatever reasons. For example, they may not be able for the pressures.

Deputy Ó Cuív would be more knowledgeable that I am about the rural social scheme because it was his brainchild. The six-year rule means that eligibility for the scheme is based on farm income. If eligibility criteria allow a person to qualify, I cannot understand why this rule is being imposing. The scheme is working well and has great benefits for rural communities, similar to the CE scheme. I acknowledge the fact that when people are near pension age they will not be taken off the scheme, which is an improvement. However, in my constituency for example a young man in his forties is on a rural social scheme. He is looking after two small villages in his locality, doing maintenance, cutting the grass in the GAA grounds and so forth, which is valuable work for the community. He now faces the guillotine of being taken off the scheme in about six months. He will never get a job in mainstream employment. He is able to keep his farm ticking over with a little supervision and help with the paperwork but he is doing an excellent job in his community. I urge the Department to review that six-year rule. When a person continues to meet the criteria for the scheme, I cannot see the logic in having a termination date.

The six-year rule is also an issue under the CE scheme. I am told by Tidy Towns committees and GAA committees that they cannot do without their CE workers. If the schemes are terminated after six years, there will not be replacements in the current employment environment. This means we have people who are compatible with the scheme and who are not costing the Exchequer any significant amount because the top-up is not economically enticing. These people are glad to do the work. It is good for their mental health. It gets them out of their home environment so that they meet people. The benefits for the individuals cannot be overstated. Communities and towns also benefit in different ways such as the tidy towns initiative. For example the St. Mary's Eliogarty memorial committee in Thurles looks after an old church, started a Famine museum and a commemorative garden that is the envy of many other places. Without the CE workers, they would not be able to maintain the standards. That also needs to be looked at in the context of where we are in the employment cycle. Villages will suffer without the people on CE schemes, of whom just a small percentage will enter mainstream employment.

The Tús scheme has a 12-month limit. I met scheme supervisors in my constituency office recently. For a person to be trained and ready to participate fully in the scheme, a term of 12 months is extremely short. That should be examined with a view to extending it to two years. There will be many benefits in that participants will hopefully enter mainstream employment but to expect Tús to achieve all its objectives for individuals, a 12-month period is too short. A two-year programme would be more beneficial for the scheme and for participants.

Supervisors on Tús and rural social schemes believe that their working conditions have not been recognised. Some improvements have been made for supervisors on CE schemes. It is imperative that the same is done for the supervisors on Tús and rural social schemes. Pension rights, pay and conditions for both schemes must be looked at seriously if we are going to keep these committed people on those schemes.

With regard to the carer's allowance, many farmers look after elderly relatives. It is difficult for farmers to qualify for the allowance because of the way the hours are compiled. In reality, a farmer is in and out constantly looking after the elderly person.

It is not practical for that farmer to try to calculate the number of hours he farms. He is engaged full time in supervising the care of the elderly person in the house. Whether he goes out to herd his animals or do other work, he is constantly supervising that person's care. More sympathy needs to be shown for the calculation of those hours by a farmer who is seeking carer's allowance, given he is 24-7 on site and always available. He will have to tend his animals and engage in farm activities at certain times of the day, but the reality is he is providing full-time care for that individual. Recognition must be given to that in the way the hours are compiled in the context of a farmer's eligibility for carer's allowance. Those are the points I would like to make on the scheme. It plays an extremely important role for people who, for whatever reason, will never secure mainstream employment. Some tweaks to it would make it far more suitable for the environment in which we are operating.