Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 6: To ask the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the allowances and grants which participants of the rural social scheme can claim; the specific criteria, payment and so on; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8309/10]

Joe McHugh (Donegal North East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 7: To ask the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs the changes made to the materials grant to cover ancillary costs such as travel, health and safety equipment for participants of rural social schemes; the monetary effect same has on participants; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8305/10]

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 and 7 together.

In general, participants on the Department's rural social scheme, RSS, can apply for adult and child dependant allowances, depending on their family circumstances, and also for the free fuel allowance. All of these allowances are payable directly by my Department and the qualifying criteria are generally in line with those applied by the Department of Social and Family Affairs. Other allowances and grants may be payable to RSS participants by other Departments and agencies in certain circumstances - for example, the back to school clothing and footwear allowance and higher education grants. The qualifying criteria for such allowances and grants are a matter for the relevant Department or agency.

Since the introduction of the RSS in 2004, a materials grant to cover ancillary costs such as travel and health and safety equipment has been paid to the implementing bodies that administer the scheme at local level on behalf of my Department. This grant was paid at the weekly rate of €15.24 per participant per week up to the end of 2008. In 2009, in the context of the availability of resources, the materials grant was set at €11.63 per participant per week. Guidance was issued to the implementing bodies to prioritise essentials such as health and safety requirements with the materials funding made available to them. This can include safety clothing and boots for participants, where appropriate.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The rural social scheme is an excellent programme. I hope the Minister will contact his colleague, the Minister for Finance, to seek additional funding so that more places can be provided on the scheme. Rising unemployment has led to increased demand and I hope the scheme will be allocated its fair share of funding.

As the Minister pointed out, allowances in regard to health and safety, clothing and so on have been reduced. I am pleased to hear that the Minister has written to the implementing bodies to emphasise that health and safety requirements should be prioritised within the available materials funding. Will the Minister follow that up to ensure recipients retain their current funding levels and do not endure further cutbacks in allowances for clothing and other health and safety requirements? I hope the Minister will write to the implementing bodies.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputy for his support for the scheme. It is a success on the ground and I thank those participants in the scheme who did such Trojan work during the bad weather at the start of January.

We can be clear about one thing, we have been paying €11.63 per week since 2009. Of that, €4.63 goes directly to paying PRSI, leaving €7. If we multiply that by 50 and add €14, it amounts to €364 per year for participants. That should be more than enough to buy all the rainwear, safety boots and direct, personal paraphernalia someone would need.

I had the choice to reduce the number of participants or to reduce slightly the money for materials. I still believe €364 is quite adequate to provide personal safety equipment. We must also recognise that many of these workers are working for local committees, for sports clubs and Tidy Towns organisations. If a voluntary committee has access to free labour, it is a huge head start on the old days when it had to provide the labour and the materials. It is not unreasonable to expect community groups, if they need some cement or some blocks, to come up with the money as a community. That is the spirit of rural Ireland. One of the amazing things I find in CLÁR and Gaeltacht areas that community groups are queuing up with money, telling me they have the funds if I can match them, far more than was the case during the heyday of the Celtic tiger. Perhaps they realise there is no more free lunch. The right decision in all my policies is to keep participants on the schemes.

Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I also support this scheme. How many participants are there at present and what is the geographical spread?

The proactive nature of the groups in terms of funding is fine in some areas but not in all. It is a matter the Minister must keep under review. The positive nature of the scheme should not distract from the need to examine it constantly. Small changes make a difference and if it is possible to secure an increase in funding, every group will welcome that. The positivity of the people involved is great but it is up to the Minister to keep an eye on it and to try to increase funding and participation numbers.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If I got extra funding tomorrow, I would leave the materials grant as it is and I would create more positions on the scheme. Everything must be focused for people on the ground. For many communities getting the labour is the major bonus. They can come up with the money for materials if they need it. Often it is not a major requirement because the clubs spend much more per week on materials than the €4 we have cut and they are delighted to have someone who turns up every day to line the pitches, put up the nets and open the grounds.

In terms of geographical spread, Kildare, for instance, would have a small number. The reason is that the scheme mirrors the number of people on farm assist when the scheme started. We established schemes telling each area to keep applying until we hit 2,600.

I am concerned, however, that things have changed with the downturn in the economy. If there were to be more places, we would have to ensure those areas with small numbers would get an increase. There is no prospect of extra places at present in case people get the opposite idea.

Almost 80% of participants, if a line was drawn from Derry to Cork, would be west of that line. Deputy Ring's county has the highest number on the scheme of any county, which reflects the high number of farm assist recipients.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree with Deputy Wall that it is a great scheme. Perhaps some of the funding the local authorities get should be diverted to the rural social scheme. In some cases they are doing better work than the local authorities. Perhaps the Minister might discuss that with his colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, so local authority schemes have their funding put into the rural social scheme, which is then given more authority to do work that local councils do not do.

The opening of drains is damaging more roads. This is very simple work that local authorities cannot do. It would save the taxpayer a fortune if those on the scheme were let do this.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The scheme is particularly cost effective. It costs approximately €7,000 more per annum than participants would have received on social assistance. That allows for these all having home income, so a fair number were not getting the full farm assist, which is a means tested scheme. It is a small premium to pay for the extra work we are getting.

I note the Deputy's remarks. If local authorities, however, were encouraged to lay off staff, the Deputy's party would be quick to tell us we are causing more unemployment. As funds become available in future, I will endeavour to secure them. It has been my priority in the cutbacks to keep numbers on the schemes intact. We secured that and did the same in the community services programme, where the numbers are higher this year than they were last year. I cut back the materials grant because the number one priority is to keep people working.

Joe McHugh (Donegal North East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 8: To ask the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs his views on whether the level of community supports provided by community service programme organisations across the country will be hindered by the reduction in 2010 financial allocation from his Department; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8314/10]

Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 13: To ask the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs if cuts in the allocation from Pobal to community groups will be reversed. [8244/10]

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 and 13 together.

During 2009, over 80 different organisations were approved for grants from my Department's community services programme, supporting an additional 300 employment opportunities in the provision of services. As Deputies will appreciate, the pressure on the public finances has significantly impacted on resources available for initiatives delivered by my Department with funding of €46 million available for the CSP in 2010, compared with over €50 million in 2009.

Of the 450 or so organisations approved to deliver services under the CSP, an increase of 80 on the January 2009 position, contracts in respect of some 320 projects expired at the end of 2009. In the current economic climate, I am keen that the current levels of employment in these organisations are maintained. However, given the reduction in overall funding for the programme, I can only do this by abolishing the non-wage grant that was previously payable. I have, however, provided a review process where an immediate examination of the impacts of the reduction in support to organisations is being undertaken.

It should be noted that organisations providing services under the CSP are required to develop non-public forms of income by way of charging fees, trading or fund-raising, as the programme is not designed to cover the full operating costs of supported organisations.

Michael Ring (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A number of groups have made representations to me about this scheme, including many women's groups, active retirement groups, security services for the elderly, rural transport, community development and enterprise and local radio stations. They are concerned that following the cutbacks they will not be able to meet their health and safety criteria or cover their insurance. The schemes will not have enough money to keep going and they will close down as a result. Is there any way funding can be found for these groups, which are all deserving in their own right? They are dealing with the elderly and community groups and I do not want us to lose community feeling. During the past ten years it was extremely difficult to encourage people to become involved in their communities. However, increasing numbers of individuals are now doing so. We need our communities now more than ever. I urge the Minister to reconsider the matter in order to see what funding he might be able to obtain for any of the groups that are in difficulty. I received representations from 13 to 14 such groups.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As already stated, there are many more people employed on the scheme now than was the case on 1 January. In light of the budgetary position, I faced a decision whereby I could either reducing the number of people in employment, which I was extremely reluctant to do, or cutting the non-wage grant. If my Department had been obliged to examine the 450 projects involved to assess their ability to do without the non-wage grant, this would have taken a great deal of time. What we did, therefore, was to notify the groups that the non-wage grant had been discontinued. We then stated that those on which this would have a serious impact, create a risk in the context of health and safety implications, prevent compliance with any law or affect the viability of a project would have the right to put a case to the Department.

We imposed a closing date in January on the making of applications in order that matters might be progressed. As I informed the CSPs, however, I will not refuse late applications. We imposed the closing date in order that groups experiencing the type of problems to which the Deputy refers might make applications which could then be dealt with rapidly. Of the total of 450 projects, 320 were notified of the change I have outlined. Some 50 of these have sought reviews. I understand that before the end of February a further ten may seek reviews.

The review taking place at present is immediate in nature and is meant for those projects that are in serious trouble. My Department informs me that I will be receiving proposals from next week onward in respect of those groups which have sought reviews. It is not my intention to allow good projects to be lost. I stress, however, that the nature of community service or social economy projects is that groups are expected to try to generate their own income streams.

Jack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree with the Minister in respect of the review and the fact that good projects should not be allowed to fail. I am of the view that if, in the context of the core goal of a project, there is an inventiveness of the part of group involved to try to create income, the Minister should look positively on its efforts. I accept that such inventiveness might involve a slight divergence from that original core goal. Community projects are at the heart of social development in many areas. I was extremely critical when the boards of management of the community development programmes, CDPs, were removed because such groups are at the centre of communities. If they can display inventiveness in creating additional income that will make a difference, the Minister should welcome this. He should reward these groups by awarding them whatever additional funding is at his disposal.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Absolutely. When we assumed responsibility for the programme and carried out the initial review, it emerged that a significant variety of groups were involved. There are some groups in RAPID areas which will find it extremely difficult to create their own incomes. Some others are operating quite substantial tourism projects and have extremely good sources of income. There are still others which have enormous reserves of income because they have been making good profits.

If, in a time of scarce resources, projects are making good profits which can be sustained, would it not be much better for me to continue to devote funding to the creation of additional employment rather than giving grants to those who do not really need them? The projects under discussion are meant to operate in the middle economy that is located between 100% funded community groups and the 100% commercial service. There is a fantastic example of such a project in Deputy Wall's constituency, namely, Lullymore Heritage and Discovery Park. Visitors are willing to pay hard-earned money to gain entry to this park.

Some of these projects are what I would term serious loss leaders in the context that they draw in visitors, who frequent shops, public houses, etc., and help create wealth. However, there are known sources of income within some of these projects and we are trying to see how we might use the funds that exist to create further employment. There are some very good projects in RAPID areas which do not have ways of earning money. These will be treated very fairly in the review process. I have kept in reserve a small amount of money that can be allocated to groups which are acting in good faith, which are making genuine efforts and which require funding.

I chose to act in this way because if I had been obliged to review the 320 projects and then put in place an appeals process, progress would have been too slow. Only 50 groups have requested reviews - this number may eventually rise to 60 - and this is obviously because the remainder, although they may not be happy about it, are in a position to stretch their resources that bit further. They have informed me that they are willing to do the latter. In such circumstances, we will look after the groups which are experiencing problems.