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

Returning to Tús and the RSS, the interesting thing about the RSS is that the expenditure in it - I think it was 2016 when the rules were changed - was €42.39 million and it has only gone up €51 million. It is a very cheap scheme. The rules changed in an interesting way. Those who were there prior to 2016 could continue to get the full payment. Therefore, the Government is already paying for the majority of the participants at the way I would like it to be for everybody; it is only new participants who are getting different payments.

Perhaps the Minister could check a few statistics for me. Can the Minister get the number of participants who did and did not have dependent adults or children up to 2016? Since 2016, the new rule came in. Can the Minister check whether it is the same proportion of people that have or do not have dependants? I will explain why I am asking the question. It is only fair if I am asking the Minister to go to the bother of getting the information that she understands why. The reason is that up until 2016, people with a farm income still got the full payment going for the job - the full personal allowance, adult dependant and child dependant. After that, it changed. However, it did not change for a single applicant; they get the full basic rate anyway. It was as attractive before and after for the single adult going on the scheme. It was those with dependants – either adults or children – who found out that the only bonus for 19.5 hours a week work was the €20-odd top-up. That is what they are getting for 19.5 hours work a week. By definition, they were all farmers or fishers. Of course, many of those with dependants said, “Well I’m not working for €1 an hour. Good luck.” Am I correct that some people are being put off because of dependants, but that the rate of single adults going onto it has stayed the same because they get the full rate anyway? Even if a person was only getting €2 farm assist and single, they get the €220-odd payment. However, if people had €100 means on their farm and went on and had a dependent adult or whatever, they take the €100 off them. I would be interested to get that information. I think the Minister will find that there is a bit of a thing there.

Turning to Tús, I ask the Minister to get us another piece of information. Tús is the cheapie version of community employment, CE, with two differences. They spend less time in training, that is, no time other than in health and safety training. They are working all the time, which means better productivity in work terms. In addition, there is not the cost and time of training.

Can the Minister get us the figures of the difference between the cost for a Tús participant and a CE scheme participant? We should not keep extending the amount of time people can stay in CE schemes. There is only so much training people can get that will change their lives. One of the rationales behind Tús was that when people had done three or four years in the CE scheme and had got all the training they were going to get, they could continue to work if they did not get other gainful employment. It was far cheaper. I think the Minister will find that is cheaper per participant, as it should be, because there are no training costs. The Minister might find out what the difference is. That does not take into account the fact that under the CE scheme, there is less productivity because the participants are involved in training, which is fantastic. The first port of call should always be to train people into full-time, permanent employment. However, many people who are on these schemes will not succeed in getting to that position. The next port of call is to find jobs for people for as long as they need it.

I always like to find reasons. For some reason, the officials in the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform do not see things that way. They do not understand the idea that not everybody is employable in commercial employment. They may be employable in community jobs and whatever else and have quite an output. However, they would not be commercially employable. Anyone who ever commercially employed people and was involved in community schemes knows the difference. Has the Department of Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform given an explanation as to why they were so Scrooge-like from day one with Tús? I agree with the Chair. I do not know if people understand the well-being issue. Having something gainful to do and a little extra income in the house at the bottom end is transformative.

I was at a funeral in Westport a week ago. A guy came straight across the church to me and said-----