Timmy Dooley (Clare, Fianna Fail)

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I am delighted this issue is being discussed. I have been trying for a number of weeks to have this matter put on the agenda such is the concern relayed to me by many people likely to be impacted by the proposed cuts to CE schemes.

I remind some of the Members opposite of some of the promises made by the Labour Party and Fine Gael in their collective manifestos. The Labour Party promised to create a new national employment service that would integrate community employment participants, but it has simply cut the resources available to these schemes in what appears to me to be a ham-fisted manner of balancing the books. The Fine Gael election manifesto specifically stated that community employment schemes would be maintained and expanded but would be managed by local authorities, which is an interesting idea but there has been no movement on it. CE schemes will certainly not be expanded on the basis of the type of cuts announced. Fine Gael's manifesto also stated that CE schemes would be earmarked for an overhaul and expansion by 5,000 places. It stated:

This will offer community employment places to people currently on the live register. We will reform CE to make it more market-orientated with many more placements in private sector businesses. With this aim in mind, we will cut in the length of the standard Community Employment Scheme to six months, except for specific progression purposes, and strengthen the programme with regard to job search support.

Sadly, this has not happened. What we are now seeing is the Minister dealing in a blunt way with the problem of trimming back her budget. It is hoped that during the course of this debate we will get answers to the specific questions raised by Members on all sides of the House. I acknowledge that Members on the other side of the House are also concerned about CE schemes. I do not want this to be a game of ping-pong. We all represent our communities and know how effective CE schemes are in the communities they serve and how important they are to the people fortunate enough to participate on them.

As I understand it, based on the announcement on budget day - we have yet to get sight of the Finance Bill which may contain some changes in this regard - funding for CE schemes is to be cut from €360 million to €315 million, which is a €45 million cut which will impact severely on the capacity of CE schemes to operate. The Minister stated that she would close no scheme. However, inherent in that is the requirement to ask the question, if the Minister is not going to close the schemes, will she replenish the money she has already cut? How does the Minister expect schemes to operate without the €1,000 per head materials grant? While the Minister has stated that she will not close any schemes, these proposed cuts will force them to close.

I have visited many of the CE schemes in my county, urban and rural, all of which represent a mix of different people and mix of different types of work. They have made clear to me that they will not be able to sustain a cut to the tune of €1,000. A cut in the materials grant to the extent proposed will have a dramatic impact on their ability to carry out their work. I went through budgets with all of them. I am sure all Members have had budgets laid before them. I am not a forensic accountant. One does not need to be to work out that these schemes will not be able to function based on the cost of running their schemes last year, despite their operating prudently. They must have the capacity to put in place activation and training measures for participants on their schemes. If the Minister is suggesting that a valid scheme is 15 participants and a supervisor who sit around a room drinking tea all day, then schemes probably will survive. However, that is not what CE is about. CE is about providing a useful opportunity within the community for individuals wishing to participate on a scheme. It is about delivering a service.

There is a clear correlation between the reduction in the number of local authority outdoor workers in rural areas and the emergence of people on CE schemes. These people do exceptional work and provide excellent value for money. There has been a huge decrease in the number of outdoor workers employed by local authorities and an increase in CE participation. CE schemes are doing the work once done by local authorities, and at a fraction of the cost. They are, in addition to increasing the confidence of participants to find jobs, keeping our rural villages and towns clean, thus assisting in the promotion of tourism, maintaining graveyards and churches, protecting our heritage, assisting in child care crèches and providing assistance in day care centres.

Deputy Nash suggested that because people are not progressing into employment, CE schemes may no longer be fit for purpose. Many young people coming out of university with PhDs are not progressing to employment in the current climate. It is wrong to suggest that if the rate of progression to employment is not what it should be, there is something wrong with the scheme. Far from it. CE schemes are keeping people's minds active. They give people a sense of purpose and a reason to get up in the morning. Despite this, it is being suggested that these schemes should be cut.

I am concerned about the level of payments to supervisors. Sadly, there is no pension scheme in place for these people. I appeal to the Government to address this matter at the earliest possible opportunity. These people have given much of their lives - 15 years or more - yet they are being ignored when it comes to retirement, which is dreadful. There are only a relatively small number involved. The Government needs to address this issue.

See this speech in context