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

I thank all our guests for coming in and for their opening statement. On the point made in the opening statement about community employment, in the first instance, providing a stepping stone to employment and, second, benefiting communities, that needs to be considered in the context of whether that is what community employment is. For some, it may be a stepping stone into employment but for others it is not. That needs to be acknowledged because no two jobseekers are the same and no two people on a CE scheme are the same. I am not sure community employment should be viewed, to some degree, as a job activation scheme for many of the participants on it. A number of issues were raised in the opening statement, which can be easily changed. Little changes can be made to these schemes that will make a big difference. We need to listen to the participants on schemes as they are best placed to advise us of the issues and, typically, to provide us with solutions to them.

The six-year rule applying to the RSS will be very problematic. It is only a number of months before it will start to kick in. It makes no sense to go ahead with the six-year rule. There are 2,890 participants on the RSS today. There are 460 vacancies on the scheme because it has a full national quota of 3,350 places. We know more than 1,400 and just under 1,500 participants will be affected by the six-year rule. Not only can the places available on the scheme today not be filled but nearly 1,500 participants, almost half the number on the scheme, will be taken off it next year. That does not make sense. I appreciate in some budgets additional places are announced and that is great, but additional places are no good when the existing places cannot be filled. There is no way, not in a million years, the six-year rule should go ahead.

I attended a meeting held by Galway Rural Development in Athenry a few weeks ago. It had a list of more than 170 organisations in County Galway that cannot get any support from the rural social scheme or Tús, or they have support but it is not enough, or they are about to lose support. Some 170 organisations are crying out for support and cannot get it.

However, we will take 1,500 people out of the scheme next year in that context. That is just bonkers. I hope that aspect will be looked at. I am concerned that the review of the RSS, which is important, and which I understand is, or should be taking place soon, was not referred to. Mention was made at the end of the opening statement of some changes being considered, but the specific review of the RSS is extremely important. It needs to be done, completed and finished by the end of this year and ahead of next year.

Turning to the community employment scheme, in this context, I remember raising issues concerning vacancies and the number of jobs advertised when that figure reached 1,200 and 1,400. Online today, more than 3,000 vacant jobs are being advertised in the context of the community employment scheme. We are again going to take people off the scheme next year because they have done their six years, yet more than 3,000 jobs are advertised that cannot be filled. This is not an issue that has just emerged on the back of Covid-19, albeit I understand that the pandemic has had an impact. JobPath has been the greatest threat from day one, as referrals to it continue to increase and the CE and other schemes have suffered as a result. This has been an issue for quite some time, and it is not new. Alarm bells should be ringing because some 3,000 jobs are being advertised today.

Moving on to Tús, and this has been said already, I do not understand why people must be unemployed for a year before they can get onto this scheme. A year is a long time to be unemployed. I do not see why this is the case. We now have an influx of Ukrainian refugees into communities, and especially into rural communities, across the State and these people can make great contributions to these communities. Rules such as the one I referred to can make it difficult for these refugees and for others to get onto a scheme. Why have this barrier there in the first place? It is important to say as well that, in addition to the undoubted benefits these schemes bring to the communities, the participants themselves benefit too. It gives people who are on their own a purpose and a reason to get up in the morning. There are huge mental health benefits. Again, all of this is why the six-year rule should be removed.

Regarding the RSS, the witnesses will know that issues have been raised regarding eligibility in this context and the need for this to be widened. This facet was mentioned, and I hope it is something that will be considered. The one year allowed on the Tús scheme is also problematic. It is particularly the case for people seeking work but who have only one year of work experience. That is problematic, and the time allowed should be increased to two years. The witnesses will know that we had representatives involved with the schemes here some weeks ago, and they told us that their funding is reduced at the end of the year if they have not filled their places. There are, though, obvious difficulties in filling those places. Therefore, the loss of funding and the reduction in that context is not fair.

The opening statement referred to the Department holding regular meetings with the representatives of the employment support schemes. When was the last regular meeting with the representatives of the employment support schemes, which schemes were they and when did that meeting take place? On this side of things as well, there are also issues concerning pay and pensions. There are growing tensions among Tús and RSS supervisors. They are looking at their pay, which has not been increased in 14 years. There is also a difference in pay in respect of Tús, the CE scheme and the RSS, which amounts to about 14% to 15%. All those issues need to be examined. The forum was mentioned in the opening statement, and it is welcome, but that has only been re-established and it needs to explore all these aspects.

On carers, as has been said by Deputy Cahill, the way that applications from farmers seeking carers allowance are processed is bizarre. Someone behind a computer in the section will determine, based on the number of acres and the number of cattle and other livestock, that an applicant is doing under 18.5 hours. I am not sure how that figure is calculated. If we take a typical farmer, his or her land is near his or her home and he or she might be looking after his or her mother. For someone who is a small farmer, once a day he or she will go out and feed and look after his or her animals. That is it. There are of course busier times of year, but I am unsure how this process works in respect of the calculation being made by someone behind a computer and the determination of the 18.5 hours in that context.

I also hope that the Department has looked at the carers and what three of those family carers had to say when they came before this committee some weeks ago. I refer to the massive financial pressure they are under and the difficulties they face in accessing carer's allowance. The means test in that regard needs to be looked at urgently. Equally, the 18.5-hour rule should not be in place. If a carer is caring for a loved one, then he or she is caring for a loved one. Regarding how carers spend their time outside of those hours, I do not think it is fair to say that we will give them a payment that is below the poverty line anyway and that they will then work full time as carers and not do anything else outside the home for longer than 18.5 hours. I do not think that is right. It is a stipulation that should be reconsidered, rather than perhaps the idea of increasing these hours further.