I wish to raise an issue that affects many people throughout the country. It relates to the community employment, CE, schemes in place that offer so much in terms of service throughout society. They are embedded in everything we do.

In July 2017 the community employment policy unit changed the rules relating to the length of time a participant who is over 55 years of age can remain on the scheme without taking a break. Up to that point, a person over 55 years could work their full lifetime entitlement of six years without taking a break. However, from July 2017, a participant over 55 years of age was obliged to take a break once he or she worked for three consecutive years. The Department included a saver clause that allowed those over 55 years who had started on CE schemes prior to 3 July 2017 to remain on a scheme under the rules that existed before that date if it was more beneficial to them.

In August 2020, CE projects were alerted to a change or different interpretation of the rules relating to the length of time those over 55 years could remain on a scheme without having to take the 12-month break. This included those who started prior to 3 July 2017. The Department is now insisting that all CE participants over 55 years of age have to take a 12-month break. This seems to be at odds with the saver clause. More importantly, it is now taking numbers away from the CE schemes. I know of one scheme where the full complement would be 33. By June, the scheme will be down to 11 participants. There is a difficulty in trying to recruit new participants because they are being seconded into JobPath, an approach that is costing more money without delivering much in results. There are approximately 2,000 vacancies in CE schemes throughout the country. It has been well documented that there is a problem with referrals to CE schemes in recent years. If this cohort is allowed to exit the CE schemes, they would be depleted and it would destroy the level of service being provided throughout the country and in communities. We are not only talking about community projects. The disability sector will be affected, including the likes of Ability West, the Irish Wheelchair Association and mental health associations. They all benefit from the CE schemes.

People may believe that when we put a participant on a CE scheme, we are doing that person a favour. In fact, participants going on the schemes are doing the country a favour. Local authorities use them to carry out the work they should normally be carrying out themselves and they now rely on these people. I appeal to the Tánaiste to look into this as a matter of urgency.

I absolutely agree with Deputy Canney that the value of the work done by people on CE schemes is extraordinary. I remember the day we visited Caherlistrane together in County Galway and saw some of the phenomenal work being done. That is replicated in communities, urban and rural, throughout Ireland.

The Minister, Deputy Humphreys, and the Minister of State, Deputy Joe O'Brien, who has delegated responsibility for CE schemes, had a constructive meeting with a delegation from CE schemes from across the country only two weeks ago. The meeting included representatives from Galway and the western region. We understand that several different issues were raised at the meeting, including the issues being experienced by some schemes in respect of people over 55 years of age. The Minister, Deputy Humphreys, has asked her officials to take on board the different points raised at that meeting and to come back to her with a set of proposals on how we can make these schemes work better for the benefit of everyone. The Minister, Deputy Humphreys, has also indicated to me that she would be happy to meet Deputy Canney and discuss the matter with him further. As the Minister for Rural and Community Development as well as for Social Protection, she recognises the vital work many CE schemes carry out in rural communities throughout the country. If there are issues causing difficulty, she wants to work with everyone to resolve them.

I would welcome the opportunity to meet the Minister, Deputy Humphreys. She is a Minister for whom I have great regard and she understands the situation.

While Department officials are looking at this, people are getting notice to go off the schemes. I know of one particular gentleman who has been told that he will finish the scheme in March and then he has to go back to his Intreo office. He has six months left in his working life before he gets the pension. It would be more prudent for that man to remain on the scheme for the sake of the scheme, as well as for the sake of the community.

My last question to the Tánaiste relates to the supervisors of these schemes. They are the leaders in the communities. The Tánaiste is well aware of the position from his time as Minister in the Department of Social Protection. These supervisors have an issue going back a long time relating to pensions and pension rights. I understand from the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Michael McGrath, that some negotiations have gone on. I would like to know when they might be concluded in order that we show respect to these supervisors and give them equality in terms of benefits and payments.

This is an issue that, as the Deputy will know, has been going on for a long time. It has been grappled with by four or five Governments at this stage. It has not been brought to resolution because there is a real difficulty around it. CE supervisors are of course entitled to the State contributory pension based on their PRSI payments. However, to be entitled to a public sector pension in the way that a nurse, civil servant or teacher might be, one must first be a public servant employed by a public body. Second, one must have paid pension contributions - a pension levy - throughout the person's working life in addition to PRSI. The difficulty is that CE scheme supervisors have done neither of these things. They have not been employed by a public body and have not paid a public sector pension levy throughout their working lives. If we were to concede the principle of giving public sector pensions to people who are not public servants and who never made public sector pension contributions, the knock-on effects would be enormous and unaffordable. The best solution is something in the vein of a gratuity or some sort of payment to recognise the fact that they did not have a pension fund. That is the kind of solution we are open to, but negotiations are not concluded.