Witnesses and members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that could be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if a statement is potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, the speaker will be directed to discontinue his or her remarks. It is imperative to comply with any such direction of the Chair.

Members attending remotely are reminded of the constitutional requirement that to participate in public meetings, they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex. This is due to the constitutional requirement that to participate in public meetings members must be physically present within the confines of Parliament or where the Parliament has chosen to sit. In this regard, I ask all members participating via Microsoft Teams who wish to contribute to the meeting to confirm they are on the grounds of the Leinster House complex. I remind all those in attendance to make sure their mobile phones are switched off or in silent mode.

Today's meeting concerns a review of several schemes administered and funded by the Department of Social Protection. The rural social scheme, the community employment scheme and the Tús scheme are important in that they provide employment that benefit both individual participants and communities right across the country. We look forwarding to engaging with departmental officials and receiving an update on recent developments on these important programmes.

With that in mind, I welcome the following officials from the Department of Social Protection to today's meeting: Ms Fiona Ward, assistant secretary general; Mr. Tony Kieran, principal officer; Mr. Shane Reynolds, assistant principal and; Ms Oriel Glancy, assistant principal. I now invite Ms Ward to make her opening remarks.

Thank you, Chair, for your invitation to attend the committee meeting this morning to discuss the rural social scheme, RSS, the community employment scheme, CE, and Tús.

The Department of Social Protection provides a range of activation supports and employment programmes catering for long-term unemployed jobseekers and those most distant from the labour market. These supports include the CE scheme, the Tús programme and the RSS. These schemes have a number of objectives: activation, income support and social inclusion. The CE and Tús schemes serve a dual purpose, first as an activation measure to provide a stepping stone to employment for people who have had difficulties, over an extended period, in securing sustainable employment; and second, to provide vital services in the local community. RSS is an income support initiative to provide part-time employment opportunities for farmers and fishers in receipt of certain social welfare payments and who are underemployed in their primary occupation. Currently,there are 19,480 participants on CE and 4,535 on Tús, with a further 2,621 on RSS. Overall, a budget allocation of some €500 million will be spent on these schemes in 2025.

Participants benefit from their engagement with these employment schemes through the employment and training opportunities they provide, moving them closer to the open labour market, as well as better mental health and well-being outcomes. Multiple benefits are provided to their local communities by supporting voluntary, sporting and community organisations to improve amenities and deliver vital local services.

The OECD, in a recently published counterfactual review of the CE and Tús schemes, found a positive impact on the employment and earnings of participants, especially for older participants on CE and younger participants on Tús. The review also found that participants were less likely to rely on disability payments and were more likely to find employment after their participation.

Participants on these three employment programmes are contracted to work 19.5 hours per week. Their payment rate is based on their underlying social welfare payment plus an additional €27.50 per week top-up, subject to a minimum payment of €271.50 weekly. Additionally, participants may also receive increases in respect of a qualified adult and child dependants and they retain their secondary benefits.

Following budget 2026, employment programme participants will see an increase to their weekly payment of €10 from 1 January 2026. Participants may also receive increases in respect of a qualified adult and child dependants. The child dependant increases are the largest in the history of the State, with increases of €8 for children under 12 and €16 for children over 12. The top-up payment will also increase by €5 per week, from €27.50 to €32.50, the first such increase since 2023.

It might be useful to set out the current labour market context in which these schemes operate. Over 2.8 million people are currently in employment, the largest number in the history of the State, and the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate is now at 4.7% with just over 164,000 people on the live register at the start of October. Labour supply is tight, with many employers reporting difficulties in recruitment.

A number of changes have been made in recent times to support CE, RSS and Tús companies recruit participants to fill vacancies. These changes include the provision of extensions to participants on CE and Tús schemes where a replacement participant is not available, allowing all persons over 60 years of age to stay on CE and RSS until reaching retirement age, changing the eligibility criteria by extending the CE eligibility to the adult dependants of those in receipt of jobseeker’s allowance, and extending eligibility also for Tús to persons in receipt of disability allowance. In 2024, a new pilot scheme to extend CE eligibility to those over 50 years of age who are signing for credits or a combination of credits and jobseeker's benefit. In November 2024, a Tús pilot scheme commenced focused on 18-year-old jobseekers who have a low probability of finding employment.

In introducing reforms such as these, a careful balance needs to be maintained between providing employment support measures for long-term unemployed and underemployed people on the one hand and delivering important local services on the other, and, in doing this, to ensure participants are supported to progress to employment, in particular when there are large numbers of unfilled opportunities available in the open labour market. The Department keeps these schemes' terms and conditions under review so that we can continue to support participants as well as the delivery of vital local community services in a strong labour market environment.

A review of the RSS scheme, completed in July 2024, made 19 recommendations to address the sustainability of the scheme to continue to support rural communities. To date, six recommendations have been implemented, including the provision of three-year contracts for participants, a reduction in the frequency of means reviews to one now every three years instead of one every year, and allowing participants aged over 60 to remain on the scheme without any further review. The Minister, Deputy Calleary, recently announced the implementation of three further recommendations from January next year, namely, a rural dweller pilot in which 250 RSS places will be ring-fenced for rural dwellers who are 50 years of age or over and on a qualifying social welfare payment, the extension of eligibility to people engaged in farming or fishing who are not the holder of the herd number or fishing licence but who have a defined connection to the farming or fishing enterprise, and the extension of eligibility to members of a couple jointly engaged in farming or fishing utilising just one herd number or fishing licence.

I acknowledge yet again the contribution that CE, Tús and the RSS have made and continue to make to local communities, urban and rural, due to the commitment and dedication of the supervisors and participants in delivering vital community services across the country. I am conscious that my opening remarks represent a just brief overview of the three employment programme schemes. I am, of course, very happy, as are my team here, to answer any questions that members of the committee may have and to provide any further detail which may be required.

I thank Ms Ward for that briefing. A number of members have indicated they want to speak. Senator Rabbitte is first.

I thank Ms Ward for being here. I know she said it was a brief overview, but it was a very concise brief overview and very welcome. As a person from rural Ireland who has seen the complete benefits of the CE, Tús and RSS schemes I cannot but commend them enough. I come from that base. I welcome the 19 recommendations and I also welcome what the Minister, Deputy Calleary, is doing in relation to the rural dweller.

I will focus on one or two points, not to take from anything Ms Ward has said but to expand the train of thought, if she does not mind. One is, where is the Department in regard to the 19.5 hours versus the 18 hours? The reason I ask is, if a person is on a scheme, they are precluded from applying for the half carer's payment. A lot of the people on the scheme could also be looking after an elderly relative, or two elderly relatives, or they could have a child with additional needs and they cannot qualify for that half carer's payment because of the 1.5 hours. I have no doubt the Department could work out what the cost would be to the State if it were to move from 19.5 hours to 18 hours and how many people in any of the schemes would be eligible to qualify if they looked for it. I do not know, however, if the Department has looked at that element of this.

Does the Department have a breakdown of the 4.7%, or the 164,000 people, who are on the live register? Do we have a breakdown of how many of those people actually have a disability allowance? How many of those are on maternity leave but doing a Skillnet course? Do we have a breakdown as to how we can target the individuals? The purpose of my question on that is to do with the disability allowance. I know there is great work going on with the Ability programme and the WorkAbility programme and I would like to talk about both of them in the same vein. Ms Ward drew attention in her opening remarks to extending eligibility for Tús to persons in receipt of disability allowance. Is the disability allowance open to RSS or CE participants? Tús is really an activation programme and people with additional needs may take longer than the year or two-year programme to build up the skills, confidence and reassurance. I have no doubt there could be a few false starts. Has the Department looked at redefining how we can advance people with additional needs to be incorporated within RSS, CE and Tús? While we value the work all of those groups do with the local Tidy Towns and the local community hall and recognise that there is a role and job for people with additional needs, that nearly becomes their permanent source of stable inclusion, employment and contribution within the community. I believe there is a key there that can be turned with people with additional needs on the disability allowance. I genuinely do not believe that, for everybody going to a day service, that should be their full stop in life. I believe that, through the role of the community under the Department's schemes and under the brilliant supervisors, people can participate in and be supported in their own communities. The day service they might have been going to full-time could now be somewhere they drop in for a cup of coffee once a week to say thanks for putting them on the right path as opposed to it being their nine to five all of the time. My questions are in that vein and I will let Ms Ward answer.

I thank the Senator. She asked a number of questions and a lot of the focus was on the disability side of things. In regard to the 19.5 hours, the idea is, when somebody is on a CE scheme, they work half of a week. We have not looked at reducing the 19.5 hours to 18 hours or increasing it for a carer to 18 hours. This is not within my area of responsibility, but one of the issues with carers is they have to be providing, or have the capacity and ability to provide, full-time care and attention to the people they are caring for.

A lot of issues must be balanced there in terms of making those changes. The Department keeps all our schemes, including the employment programmes, and how they link in with the main qualifying payments under review all the time. We look at those on an ongoing basis. I do not have any costings or anything on that for the committee today.

I think Senator Rabbitte's point is that to qualify for carer's allowance, the maximum number of hours someone can work is 18.

It is 18.5 hours.

That is the question. If you are contributing to any scheme for 19.5 hours per week, you do not qualify for the carer's allowance.

You do not. That is the current position. Any changes would have to be considered in the budgetary context. What I am saying is that the Department keeps all those things under review. In making changes to the scheme, I say to my own teams when they make suggestions - the people who work in the area are very engaged, as the committee knows our staff are - that we have to be careful so we do not have any unintended consequences. We have to look carefully at making those changes. I am not saying that we do not do that because we do it on an ongoing basis. It is not on the radar at the moment, but that does not mean we will not have a look at it.

I welcome that positivity and that the Department is prepared to look at it. I thank the Chair for his intervention. At the moment, for a person who participates in the scheme, it is the €50. For the person who participates, it is the opportunity to be included in the workforce and to get outside their front door. For a carer with an older person who might be gone to a day service for a couple of hours or a child who might be gone to school or to a day service, that might be the only opportunity for the adult carer to get adult conversation outside their own house. They still provide meaningful care. It is 24-7 when they are inside the door, but there might be an opportunity to allow for flexibility. For the sake of the €50, and caring for the carers as well, we should not have to tether people full time.

We might just get the rest of the answer. The Senator is over time.

Of the 4.7% live register unemployment figure at the moment, approximately 64,000 are long-term unemployed. There are approximately 164,000 people on the live register. People on disability allowance are not counted within the live register. There are 168,000 people on disability allowance. I can say that across all schemes, people on disability allowance can, on a self-referral and voluntary basis, access the employment programmes. Approximately 1,900 people across CE, RSS and Tús who come from the disability allowance are on that payment. They are working in CE. It is a positive story to tell.

The Senator mentioned Tús activation. She asked if people had enough time on Tús. She mentioned the two-year programme. As she knows, Tús is a one-year programme but there is provision to extend for a further six months to 18 months. I suggest that most people who come from the disability allowance would be on the scheme for 18 months. Subsequent to that, they can progress to the CE. There are opportunities for people once they come from Tús. They can progress to CE, so there is progression there.

I thank the witnesses for coming. I acknowledge the brilliant work that is done by CE, Tús and RSS workers right across the country, whether for local GAA clubs, Tidy Towns organisations or whatever else. They do massive work across the country.

I have a few points to make. I spoke to a CE supervisor this morning to ask him what the issues were and to hear his perspective before coming in to chat to the witnesses. I always thought the schemes were designed in a way where there was no real enticement to sign up for them. I know it is going up by €5 after 1 January. That supervisor said to me that, in some cases, people were driving for 20 miles to take up these schemes. With an additional €32 week, including the extra amount, someone driving that distance would be out more on the petrol required to drive to participate in a scheme than they would get from the scheme. Another point he raised was that when people reached pension age, they would be entitled to a little more. They get more on the pension to stay at home than they do going to these schemes. Those were two issues.

The supervisor also said there was a problem with the recruitment officer not referring people. He spoke to a recruitment officer for a long time but was finding it hard to get her to refer people to them. He got somebody from the Department to do it and, all of a sudden, he had several referrals to the schemes. For some of those schemes, he is allowed to refer 20 people but he only has 13 people. It is hard. He said that it was harder to recruit people for the RSS schemes.

What other criteria or measures that not have not been introduced do the witnesses believe should be considered? Has enough funding been provided for things such as lawnmowers, leaf blowers and things like that? Perhaps the witnesses could come back to me on those issues.

I am going to answer some of the Deputy's questions and will then hand over to my colleague, Mr. Kieran, to deal with some of the others. On the pension age, when participants join one of the employment programmes, they come having qualified through an underlying qualifying payment or working age payment. All the working age payments cease at the age of 66 and people move onto the State pension. That is the State pension age. When a participant reaches 66, their underlying entitlement moves to the State pension. Participants move to the State pension at 66. Supervisors do not. They can continue to work to the age of 70, if they wish to do so. This was an issue that came up during the RSS review. We had a good steering group, which comprised all the stakeholders, implementing bodies, the Irish Farmers Association, IFA, and Irish Rural Link, as well as the relevant Departments. One of the areas we looked at, and one of the recommendations, was around volunteering. We appreciate that for some people, as Senator Rabbitte said, engaging and meeting people is part of that well-being. There are good outcomes there. Perhaps there would be opportunities to continue to volunteer with the schemes or to secure employment in schemes that are not State-funded.

On the recruitment challenges, I mentioned that the labour market was tight at the moment. Many recruiters in the open labour market are having problems recruiting. CE, Tús and the RSS are also in that space. We have taken a number of steps to try to address those issues. We have made some changes, as I outlined already, to try to help schemes to recruit and retain participants. Even on the RSS, the Minister has announced changes that will start in January. That should assist in the recruitment situation there.

On staff being referred, I have full-time staff in all of our offices whose job it is to identify people who are suitable for referral to the employment programmes. They work closely with the community development officers in the Department, who also work closely with the scheme. Indeed, it is having a good dividend because the CE places have increased significantly and we are nearly at the top. We nearly have all our places filled on CE at the moment. The work we are doing in that regard is definitely paying off.

On the materials grant and the top-up payment for travel assistance, I will hand over to my colleague, Mr. Kieran.

In relation to the materials grant, there will be a €1,000 grant, additional to the funding, available for CE in the coming year. We did something similar in the past year but it has been placed on a footing in the budget this time by the Minister, Deputy Calleary. If any scheme finds it cannot manage within the funds allocated, we also have the possibility of reviewing its case, based on costs and stuff like that. We do that on a regular basis and on an individual, scheme-by-scheme basis. I am not sure what else we can do there.

On the top-up payment, it has been raised with us before that people travel distances and it costs them to go to work. There are other tax implications, or whatever, if we start paying people a travel allowance. That issue has been raised with us. All we can do is to work on the top-up payment that is given.

As the Deputy acknowledged, it will increase by €5 from January 2026. People might need more in terms of the cost of travel, maybe, but there are other benefits. I suppose this is what makes people engage in CE and do that bit of travel to get to work and to do the training it gives them in terms of moving on with their lives.

I reiterate what Ms Ward said. The Deputy mentioned recruitment and referrals and some schemes having difficulty. The live register is at an all-time low. It is not spread evenly across the State, so there are some areas where it is even lower and others where it is higher. There are some areas where there probably are very few candidates left who could go on to CE. For that reason, we have looked to extending CE to people signing for credits. This approach has had quite a reasonable level of success with people over 50 who are just signing on and getting a credit on their allowance. We have 250 to 260 people who have come from that basis. In relation to Tús, we have looked at 18-year-olds who would not normally be included but who look like they are not going to be able to get themselves a job or get off the live register. We have 135 of those young people in Tús at this stage and we would see them automatically progressing on to CE at the end of their year on Tús.

I am sorry for cutting Mr. Kieran off, but I do not have much time. Could people who have come to the country over the past couple of years be used more on these schemes?

They are. We have about 1,200 people on the Tús scheme who have come in from Ukraine and 548 on CE, so we are integrating those people into the schemes and they are working very well in terms of helping them with language skills, as well as them providing services.

Grand, I thank Mr. Kieran.

Would any other members like to contribute? I call Senator McCormack.

I am from County Laois and great progress definitely is being made there with our CE schemes. Great work is done by all the schemes and all the workers on them. I am quite familiar with a couple of organisations that have different people coming into them. We will call them the sponsors. I want to know about the training and progression rate. I really see this scheme as one where the employer is responsible for taking on people and developing them in order they can follow a pathway for career progression and whatever. Is the training rule strictly enforced or can an employer just take these people on as extra bodies and just not do a whole lot with them, which is not really fair? On the progression rates and moving into employment, do we have statistics for this? What percentage of people who take part in these schemes move on into employment or stay with the current employer?

I thank the Senator for her question. The training regime for CE absolutely is enforced. Part of the role of the CE supervisors is to develop individual learning paths for people. It is individualised. Some people may have a leaving certificate, for example, while others may not. The learning path is individual to the person concerned. The focus is on moving people closer to the labour market. This is the activation aspect of the scheme. The schemes get a participant development grant to support that training.

As for progression, the OECD did a counterfactual review in March of last year of the effectiveness of CE and Tús. In terms of keeping data on these schemes, in the context of the long term, that review looked at people who had participated in CE and Tús between four and eight years. In that timeframe, it was found in respect of CE that people over 30 who participated did better than those who had not participated in terms of the earnings levels and sustainability of the employment they got. In the longer term, then, participation in CE is a really positive thing. In Tús, conversely, it was found that younger participants, that is, those under 30, had the same outcomes in the longer term. We can send on the link to the report that was done. It was very good and very interesting.

I would really like to read the report. We do not, though, actually track how many people are staying on or retaining employment progression after this. It is definitely something we should look at just to make sure full benefit is being derived from the scheme. Locally, for example, we have the Irish Wheelchair Association and its progression rate is fantastic. Obviously, though, there are other organisations too. We must make sure it is the same for everyone. It is important and is an area we are missing out on if we are not tracking the benefits in respect of how many people are using these CE and Tús schemes and are ending up in employment at the end because it puts an extra onus on the sponsor.

The Senator is absolutely right.

Each individual has a learning and progression plan. Regarding extensions, we give one year on a scheme and then we give up to three more years if people need a bit more. We are, therefore, managing and monitoring that as people go through. In the case of older people, people over 55 do not have to train. We encourage them to do so but they do not have to. If we were to look at the progression overall on a scheme, it might not appear that good if there are a lot of older people there. Certainly, however, groups like the Irish Wheelchair Association and those involved in childcare, etc., have very good progression and high progression rates. As the Senator said, apart from the OECD report, we do not track people going into employment or where they go after they leave.

I thank Mr. Kieran.

Finally, when people finish their scheme and come back into the Intreo centre, they start again with the employment services. My teams, that is, the personal advisers, work with them to develop a progression plan for them when they return to their primary payment.

I thank Ms Ward.

If Ms Ward sends the report link to the clerk, we will circulate it to all the members. As I am conscious we have only about 25 minutes left, any member who wants to speak should indicate now so I can divide the time appropriately, if that is okay. Next up is Deputy Eoin Hayes.

I thank the witnesses for coming in. A lot of preparation goes into doing this and providing us with all this information. I think the Tús and CE schemes, or other programmes as they were called in the past, were a key part when they started back in 2013 of making sure people who were unemployed were being activated. I do not need to educate the witnesses on this point but I am quite conscious of the social democratic model FDR brought in during the Great Depression in terms of the Civilian Conservation Corps and the Tennessee Valley Authority. Those kinds of employment activation schemes are really important in areas of economic downturn around the world. I thank Ms Ward and all her officials for working on this and everybody who is involved, including the CE and Tús supervisors who do this work.

I am conscious as well that one of the other contributors we will be hearing from later might be talking a little about moving from employment activation to social inclusion. I would like to hear from Ms Ward on that philosophical shift that may occur. In particular, going back to what the Senator said earlier, this question of progression rates and people going back into sustainable and permanent employment is really important. There are, though, some people who may never be fully suitable for that kind of employment or contribution to society. It is about making sure the schemes cater for people with disabilities, in disadvantaged communities and in difficult family situations and allow for those kinds of different areas. I would like to hear from Ms Ward on that aspect.

Turning to pay rates and pension entitlements, I would like to hear a little about how the compensation for labour might be recognised in terms of pension entitlements for the participants. I also would like to hear how the pay rates are adjudicated on. Is it simply a top-up of welfare rates or is it something more than that?

Okay, Deputy. We might get the witnesses to respond now or they will not have the time to do so.

Yes, sorry. I have just one final question around international protection applicants. Immigration is something that concerns a lot of us and how we treat migrants and all that. I would like to hear Ms Ward's thinking about engaging with those kinds of communities as well.

I thank the Deputy for his questions. The employment programmes have a dual role, as we said. They have an activation role, where they take participants who are at a distance from the labour market.

Those people get an opportunity to contribute to their local communities - that is the social inclusion piece as well - while undertaking training and education to move them closer to the labour market. This goes back to what Deputy Hayes said. In a downturn, you want to make sure that people are as close as possible to the labour market in order that they are ready to go if there is an upturn.

We recognise that participating in the scheme and going there every day is progression for some people. For others, obviously, moving into the open labour market is progression. The schemes are good at identifying people who fit into both categories. We do not categorise people. I do not think we could or would want to do so. The Deputy mentioned some of the more marginalised groups, including people with disabilities. One of the great aspects of those schemes is that they take people who are from more marginalised groups, give them the skills to try to find an occupation in the open labour market and move them closer to that market such that when they come back, say, to the employment services side of the Intreo centre, they have skills, etc., to allow teams to try to find them employment. We have a lot of other employment work programmes to incentivise employers to take people on.

It is about striking a balance. We do not differentiate. As Mr. Kieran said, people who are over 50 do not have to engage in the education and training process, but I would not write any 50-year-old off. I am over 50.

Over 55.

Over 55 is young to say somebody is not going to get a job in the labour market. It is really about people working on the schemes. The supervisors are great at identifying what people need.

On pay rates, a person retains his or her social protection entitlement and then gets a top-up payment. As stated, that payment will be rising to €32.50 in January. With the general increases across the board following the budget, the rate will go from €271.50 to €286.50. The notional hourly rate is more than the national minimum wage that is being introduced in January. We keep an eye on that. When they are working on the schemes, participants pay social insurance. They make contributions towards their pension entitlements while they are working on schemes. They all count.

International protection applicants cannot access our schemes because they are paid under the auspices of the Department of Justice, Home Affairs and Migration. After six months, however, they can access the labour market if they still have not gone through the process. We offer them a service on a voluntary basis. They can come to the Intreo centre and meet with the employment personal advisers and the job coaches, and we can work with them to help them secure employment.

I apologise for missing the opening statement. I am fortunate that I have a copy of it.

The body of work that Tús, the RSS and those participants do is phenomenal. As a society, we would not manage as well as we do without those people taking up positions whereby they are involved in maintaining community parks and graveyards, visiting the elderly and many other wonderful things. I sometimes cringe when I hear how little financial reward they get. We must reach the point where people are incentivised to take on the jobs in question.

I have been looking through the report. It states that Roma, Travellers or, indeed, some of the newer population that have arrived here can self-refer. I am trying to grasp what that means. I would have thought that those people, who feel marginalised would be incentivised to look in that direction when it comes to seeking employment or getting involved in their communities. We need to do that, if we are not doing it already. We need to get to a place where, rather than sitting in accommodation or feeling that they do not have a place in society, people are, somehow or other, are encouraged to take up those schemes. This will give rise to a number of benefits. The first is that we would have the benefit of these people's skills, because many of them are very talented. The second is that they would feel they were fitting into the community and providing a benefit. If that were to be facilitated or encouraged, it would be much better for our society.

When we use the term "self-referral" in relation to the financial rewards and the payments they get, that is a budgetary matter. It is not something that I can comment on. In the context of dealing with the more marginalised groups, self-referral means that they are actually a target group for the Department. We are at full employment, and we do not move the dial now at this point for those people. We will never do it. The Intreo employment services which I have responsibility for target those marginalised groups for activation purposes. We have made changes to the schemes such that, in general, in order to qualify for them, someone has to be in receipt of a payment for a year, say, in respect of Tús, whereas the more marginalised groups can have immediate access to the schemes. We have been looking at the schemes to make them as flexible as we can in order to try to move the dial for those people.

In relation to people with disabilities, the Intreo employment services engage in an early engagement initiative. When somebody is receipt of a disability allowance, after six months we contact them and ask them the question. We work with the groups to develop the way we contact them, and it is all done on a voluntary basis. We ask them if they would like to come in and talk to the employment services staff. We have dedicated employment services employment personal advisers for disability in all of our offices. In the first instance, an adviser will have a phone call with a person to see whether they want to engage with the employment services in order to identify the supports we can offer to help them if they want to move closer to the labour market. It is through this engagement that they are referred to CE, Tús and the RSS. In the same way, those in the marginalised groups are in receipt of a payment from us. They engage with our employment services. We see the employment programmes as a good outcome for some of those from the marginalised groups because they are a distance from the labour market. Access to the programmes helps them get the skills they need to move them closer to the labour market.

That is what we mean by self-referral. It is so that they can have access. Tús is a mandatory programme. When you are selected, once you are over a year in receipt of a payment, you have to engage with Tús, whereas for the 18-year-olds, we are saying it is a voluntary process. I hope that explains it.

The period of social welfare supports should be looked at. Nobody should sit for a year waiting for an opportunity. If that was looked at, it might encourage more people to get involved.

I thank the Department for the engagement. Listening to the questions and answers has been interesting and illuminating.

It has already been said so I will not labour the point, but the value of these schemes to the participants and to communities right across the State needs to be acknowledged. It is significant.

I put a couple of questions to the Minister at the start of the summer. In response, he suggested that this would be a good topic for the committee to discuss. I am glad this meeting is taking place. The second session will be interesting too.

I will repeat the questions that I put to the Minister because I would like to hear Ms Ward's opinion. One is with regard to interoperability and the co-ordination between the various schemes. As we all acknowledge, demographics are changing, the profile of participants is changing and the nature of the labour market has changed beyond all recognition from when these schemes were in their heyday or, perhaps, were being designed. We need to see a little more flexibility and interoperability. Whereas somebody can do their 12-month mandatory Tús placement and then move to a CE scheme, someone who has come to the end of their CE scheme placement does not, as far as I understand it - and correct me if I am wrong - have the ability to undertake a Tús placement or move to another scheme. Whereas that might be for good reason, I am sure there are cases - I have encountered them in my constituency office - where the latter would make sense for the individual involved. There is need for a little more flexibility. I am trying to tease out whether discussions in that regard are happening in the Department during the ongoing review process.

How can we make these schemes work better together?

My other question is on the rural social scheme, RSS. As I understand it, a fishing licence or herd number are needed to qualify for the RSS. That excludes an awful lot of people living in rural communities who could certainly avail of and definitely benefit from participation in the scheme. Has there been any discussion or moves to broaden that out in order that more people can participate?

This issue is not quite related but it is in a similar vein. I know the fish assist programme, the fisherman's variant of farm assist, is an income support rather than labour activation scheme. There has been a really low take-up of that scheme, notwithstanding the huge need in coastal communities. Is there a way the RSS and fish assist scheme could work closer together to hit those fisherman who definitely need some level of support to augment their income from fishing and participate in the community but maybe do not qualify for fish assist?

I will take the RSS questions and Mr. Kieran will deal with the interoperability piece on the ground. I am happy to say that on the RSS side, in 2024 we completed a review of the RSS because the numbers were challenging. The facts are the numbers of people in receipt of farm assist are also reducing. In the past ten years, they have reduced by 62%. Even Teagasc, which was part of the review group, gave us some stark statistics showing that the number of farmers is reducing as well. One of the reasons we had the review was to look at the sustainability of the scheme in that changing environment. Nineteen recommendations were made as a result of that review, one of which will be introduced in January next year. The Minister recently announced three things we will be doing. We will develop a rural dweller pilot for which applicants will not have to be a farmer or have a farming licence or herd number. Applicants have to be aged over 50, in receipt of a qualifying payment and living in a rural community to qualify for that. We are doing a pilot involving 250 people. We will review it after a year to see how it is working but it will be a game changer for the scheme.

In addition, we are allowing people who do not have a fishing licence or herd number but have a connection with a farming enterprise, maybe as a family member, to access the scheme as well. We are introducing a pilot of that in January next year. If one partner in a couple is involved in the RSS and is a farmer or fisher, the other partner will also be able to participate in the scheme. We are looking at having those changes introduced in January. We will review them after a year but we certainly think they could help to ensure the RSS continues to support communities.

I will ask a supplementary question on that measure, which is very welcome. How big will the pilot be and how long will it run for?

The rural dweller pilot is ring-fenced at 250 places. We will spread it out across the 38 implementing bodies of RSS throughout the country. We will do it for a year and then make a decision. If it goes well, as I expect it will, we will then mainstream it. There is no limit as regards the other two recommendations on family members and those who have a connection with the farming enterprise, as well as two members of a couple availing of the scheme.

On the interoperability, we are very keen that when someone finishes on Tús, they can go seamlessly on to CE and avail of the quality training and QQI authenticated training. That works and I hope, at this stage, it is working pretty well across the country. I take the point made that there were some individual cases where if somebody finished on CE, they might benefit from going back on to Tús. We would not necessarily see that as a progression. We have not done it but that is not to say we could not consider it. When somebody finishes on CE, having gone through Tús and CE, they will come back into an Intreo office, if they have not managed to get work, where they will interact with an employment personal adviser who will help them to work out some pathway that would, hopefully, lead them to work as opposed to remaining on the live register.

I welcome everyone. I have studied all the changes that will be made from January 2026. I was on the local board for years. I really welcome these changes, not alone the increases but all that is attached to them because we could not get them for the participants previously. That is all great news. We were also crying out for a mechanism to go from Tús on to another scheme. That is now flexible, which is very good. The third one that is very good is that when a person cannot be replaced on the scheme, be that in the local GAA club, a graveyard or whatever else, they can now continue in their position. That caused awful heartaches to everybody, including me as a public representative.

It was mind-boggling to think about what happened to these people who loved their jobs. Some of the people who are working for us on these schemes really get attached to the scheme and take ownership of the job they are doing. We can see the satisfaction on their faces when we go into the graveyard or whatever and how much they welcome this opportunity. They may have been out of work for years or may not have been able to be involved in the workforce, for various reasons. I am delighted that is changing now. Going forward, the voluntary committees that are employing the people in the schemes know they will have a pathway to the future. I thank the officials for that.

This is a good news story. We wrote to Ministers previously asking that they change this and get onto the Department. A lot of common sense has come into it. The requirement to have a herd number is also gone. That was always mind-boggling to me and it got me down in a lot of cases. I have a herd number but loads of other people who were suitable for the schemes did not have herd numbers for various reasons. They could have employed in the agricultural industry, as Teagasc said in its report. I understood that was happening and I know it came as a shock to some of the officials in the Department. This will open up a whole new era for people who have a huge contribution to make.

I thank all the people who employ people with disabilities, even if it is only for two or three hours a day. I would like the schemes to be a little more flexible for those people and include longer hours for them. The feedback I get when talking to them is that they would love to be working longer in the day as they might only work for two hours. In my area, I see them going home at 11 o'clock having started at 9 o'clock. They would love to be in the canteen at 1 o'clock. Most of the people they are working with are very good to these people. I ask the officials to look at that from that point of view.

We have huge employment at the moment, thank God. We have to make sure there is work for all. I like that saying, which is one of my own, that there should be work for all. We should be at that place. I thank the officials for the work they do.

I thank the Deputy for his compliments. I have to compliment Mr. Kieran and the team who are here because they really work very closely with all of the schemes. They are very open to listening to issues as they arise and they find practical and flexible ways to address them.

In relation to the changes, the Minister has been very supportive of the RSS and all the employment programme schemes. The Department is delighted to have got those changes to the RSS to be introduced in January. On flexibility, we try to be as practical as we can within the constraints in which we operate. I thank the Deputy for his comments.

These changes will be all implemented in our local areas in January 2026. Is that correct?

Yes.

That is grand. We can make representations if anybody is coming off the scheme. I thank the witnesses.

There is no better man, I would say.

No, I am just saying-----

He is dead right.

I am absolutely delighted. It is great work. Every one of us has come across this issue and it is heartbreaking for the people affected. The change is great, as is the fact that they will be allowed to work to 66.

There is hope for Deputy Aird yet.

It is good to see the numbers showing that more than 19,000 people are involved in CE, 4,500 people are involved in Tús and another 2,600 are involved in the RSS. I am conscious we still have vacancies. It is a big challenge for the local community groups that Deputy Aird and other members mentioned to get those schemes back up and going.

If there is a vacancy, there is a community with a vacancy and that is the issue. It is a matter of getting that up to the full complement again and even extending it. We are considerably low in the numbers on the unemployment register but we have a stark figure of approximately 47,000 people who have been on jobseeker's for longer than two years. I got figures during the summer. There is a challenge in mobilising those people to get back into the workforce. I encourage all the witnesses to see if we can go a bit further to secure those and to work with the pathway officers in the local Intreo services, to ensure we get as many of those people as we can into the workforce.

Ms Ward's opening remarks were very pointed that it does have value for their quality of life, mental health and physical and mental well-being. That is hugely important for us as public representatives. Right across the political spectrum, we would like to see everyone getting involved in one of these schemes going forward. As the previous speakers have mentioned, the spectrum has broadened now to include many of those people. I encourage the witnesses to see that we have a challenging number in respect of people who have been on jobseeker's for a longer period. There is a difficulty in trying to get them into the workforce, but we need to have all offices and supports working with them to try to achieve that as best we can. A number of sponsors have taken on rehabilitation schemes, which we have never mentioned today. It is something I brought up with the Minister recently. It is an advance to the ordinary CE scheme, called a rehabilitation scheme. I would appreciate a comment from Ms Ward on how it is intended to expand that over the next couple of years in the Department. What are the criteria for that going forward? How can we work with all these different schemes to increase participation?

On the 47,000 people who have been over two years unemployed, Intreo employment services, the personal advisers and job coaches are working with all those people at the moment. Some people are more distant from the labour market than others. Some people have issues that they have to address as well. If people have particular barriers, we let them address those barriers. They might have drug addiction, as the Cathaoirleach mentioned, some alcohol issues or some other issues. We do work very closely with them and try to find pathways to work for all the people who engage with the service. The benefits of somebody securing a job are not just for the person themselves but the wider family as well. The benefits are really significant.

We do have some drug rehabilitation schemes and we have about 1,000 ring-fenced places for those schemes. I will hand over to Mr. Kieran, who will be more up to date on the figures.

We have ring-fenced places on CE and the drugs schemes, on various schemes, some in actual drug rehabilitation schemes and some that are attached to mainstream schemes but have a rehabilitative purpose. They are more or less fully subscribed at the moment. We are looking at parts of the country where there is under-representation and where we do not have schemes. We are working with the other agencies. We have a drug advisory group, which I chair, an inter-agency group with other representatives that meets regularly, looking at that, dealing with the issue and helping people who have issues with any addiction and who could benefit from CE. The results are very good in terms of outcomes and progression, going back to what Senator McCormack mentioned earlier on that one in particular.

On carers being included in the scheme, I can hear that the witnesses are open to flexibility and we have so many positive changes coming. There are so many carers here now. For the sake of between 18 hours and 19.5 hours, is there some way they could be included? When we look at the surveys from carers, we see loneliness, isolation, mental health and all of these things. The benefits of this scheme for our carers would be massive. One hour is not going to affect their ability to care for someone.

Thanks, Senator. A final comment from Senator Rabbitte.

Is it only a comment?

Yes.

Following on from a point Ms Ward made, when we look at disability, we are looking more at those who acquire a disability as opposed to those who have a congenital condition, like children or young people with Down's syndrome. If we do not also look at people who have been born with a condition, and who also get the disability allowance, we are excluding a cohort. Looking at the 168,000, I would like to look at whether they have acquired or were born with a disability, as the opportunity to participate. I would also like the officials to look at their ratios. I have looked at them. We need to be aware of where we are accommodating and including persons with additional needs on a scheme. With the goodwill of the supervisor who is prepared to support them, we have to look at the ratio to ensure we support them and that they are included and can participate. It is a pity we do not have the witnesses for a little bit longer.

The officials will be around for a couple of minutes while we facilitate the transition of witnesses. I want to thank all the officials.

I just want to clarify something Senator Rabbitte said. It is not just people who acquire a disability that we engage with in the early engagement. It is everybody, people who move from domiciliary care allowance to the scheme. We started the process looking at the younger cohort who were in receipt of disability allowance. We capture everybody who is in receipt of that payment.

Is Ms Ward telling me the Department actively engages with people who are in day services?

If they are receipt of a disability allowance, we certainly engage. We started the programme with young people. We wrote out to everybody who was under 21, and then to those under 25, then to those under 30. When we had covered that cohort and asked them if they were interested in engaging with us, we then expanded the scheme to everybody who is in receipt of a payment for six months. We write out to them as well. We capture everybody.

I thank the officials for taking part this morning and for providing the briefing material in advance. We will suspend for five minutes.

As we have facilitated the change of witnesses I will call the meeting to order. I must read a note on privilege and deal with some housekeeping matters before we begin. Witnesses and members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make any charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that would be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative they comply with such a direction I might make.

Members attending remotely are reminded of the constitutional requirement that to participate in public meetings members must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex. This is due to the constitutional requirement that, to participate in public meetings, members must be physically present within the confines of the place where the Parliament has chosen to sit. In this regard, I ask members participating via Microsoft Teams to be on the grounds of the Leinster House complex if they wish to contribute to the meeting. I remind everyone to make sure their mobile phones are switched off or on silent mode.

I welcome the witnesses to the meeting. From Avondhu Blackwater Partnership I welcome Ms Valerie Murphy, chief executive, and Mr. John Hedigan, RSS participant. From the Crann Support Group I welcome Ms Marie Daly, chief executive and Ms Catherine Finney, CE co-ordinator. From Liffey Partnership I welcome Ms Anne Fitzgerald, chief executive, and Ms Ciara O'Connell, labour markets programme manager. I thank them all for taking time out of their busy schedules to discuss the review of the RSS and CE schemes and Tús. We look forward to engaging with them and gaining insight into the operation of these schemes, which are important for both the individuals and the communities.

I invite Ms Murphy to make her opening remarks.

Good morning everybody. I sincerely thank the Chair and members of the committee for the opportunity to attend. On behalf of 38 local development companies and implementing bodies supporting the rural social scheme it is a great honour to represent what I consider a cornerstone programme for rural Ireland. The rural social scheme makes an incredible contribution to all aspects of rural life across diverse regions. It supports a wide range of community-based beneficiaries and, most important, it contributes to the health and well-being of our rural social scheme colleagues and their families.

Farming remains the foundation of rural Ireland and retaining family farms is vital to protecting our rural heritage and culture while maintaining farming practices which are in tune with our environment, thus underpinning vibrant and sustainable rural communities, villages and towns. The rural social scheme, which was established in 2004, is an income support and social inclusion initiative that provides part-time employment opportunities in community and voluntary organisations for farmers or fishermen in receipt of certain social welfare payments and underemployed in their primary occupation. Nationally, the scheme has 2,621 participants supported by the Department of Social Protection and managed by 38 community-based local development companies. However, there are 3,350 participant places available. Recent years have seen a decline in participant numbers. This is consistent with an overall decline in the number of family farms and the ageing profile of farmers and fishermen. This represent the loss of resources for community services and lost opportunities for eligible individuals who for a variety of reasons are either unaware of the rural social scheme or choose not to participate. I take this opportunity to reiterate that the rural social scheme offers a flexible, encouraging, collaborative and friendly environment for participants and I strongly encourage any potential participants to reach out to their local RSS supervisor for an informal conversation.

The introduction of additional measures within budget 2026 has emerged from the wide-ranging and in-depth review of the rural social scheme published in 2024. The Department of Social Protection is to be complimented on this truly in-depth and collaborative report. Three key recommendations have been agreed and will commence in 2026. They aim to address the sustainability of the scheme, further alleviate isolation and improve access to service delivery in rural communities and include: the introduction of a rural dweller pilot to ring-fence 250 places for rural dwellers of 50 years of age or over who are on a qualifying social welfare payment; extending RSS to people engaged in farming or fishing who are not the holder of the herd number or fishing licence but who have a defined connection to the farming or fishing enterprise; and extending the RSS to members of a couple jointly engaged in farming or fishing utilising just one herd number or fishing licence.

These measures, in conjunction with regular communication with eligible participants via the Department of Social Protection, will have a positive impact on overall numbers. Recent correspondence via the Department, sent directly to eligible participants, led to the recruitment of new participants, particularly in our area.

Within Avondhu Blackwater Partnership, we are very fortunate to have a cohort of only 18 small-scheme, hard-working, committed and, as far as I can observe, happy participants who give generously of their time to the community and, in return, become part of our team. We do not consider them participants; they are part of the company cohort.

Our RSS colleagues have become a key part of the organisation, offering key services to our communities, supporting organisations, including Horizons Cork, formerly Cope, represented by my colleague Mr. John Hedigan, while also maintaining our long-distance walking trail and delivering environmental services as a partner to the EU Waters of LIFE programme, for example. I will give an example of the work undertaken. The Avondhu Way part of the Blackwater Way is a 109 km-long trail, offering a range of looped walks along the journey to the picturesque Blackwater Valley area. Through hard work and dedication, we are delighted that our RSS team has achieved a score of 100% in our most recent Sports Ireland trail audit. Compliments to all of our RSS participants. This is due, in no small part, to our RSS colleagues. We acknowledge collaboration with the Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht, the outdoor recreation infrastructure scheme, Coillte, Cork County Council, local farmers and communities along the route.

I thank and acknowledge our RSS colleagues in Avondhu Blackwater Partnership and across the whole country for the vital work they undertake. I wish to impress upon the committee the true value of the scheme to every individual participant. It truly enriches their daily lives and provides solace in what can otherwise be an isolating occupation. We are proud of our role in sustaining this vital programme and look forward to its continued success and growth into the future.

I thank Ms Murphy. I now call Ms Daly to make her opening remarks.

I thank the committee for the opportunity to address it today. I am here to introduce the Crann Support Group, a shared business service project supporting community and volunteer organisations under its remit. Crann has responsibility for more than 345 staff members. We currently manage three community employment service schemes located in Ballivor and Trim, and Rowlandstown in Dublin. Across these schemes, we have 85 community employment participants, supported by five supervisors and one assistant supervisor.

The Crann CE scheme was established in 2012. We inherited from a previous community group that went into liquidation. We are approved for 23 participants and have 18 on our schemes at present. We have a progression rate of 80%. The Ballivor CE scheme has been in existence for 23 years and was a pilot site for the delivery of the childcare dedicated scheme. On behalf of social welfare, it currently supports 50 participants and we have a progression rate of 95%. The Rowlandstown scheme has been operating for 25 years in a significantly disadvantaged area in south Dublin. It has 19 participants and an 80% progression rate.

Between our schemes, we work with approximately 29 subsponsors, supporting essential services including Tidy Towns, charity shops, childcare, meals on wheels, youth work and organisations such as MCDAR, which is the Meath community drug and alcohol response project. Many of these community projects would not be in existence only for the CE participants.

The CE participant scheme provides much more than employment. It offers support structure, training and pathways back to education and work. Many of our participants are early school-leavers, people who have lost jobs due to closure or individuals facing mental health challenges. CE gives them a new lease of life, helping them to rebuild valuable skills, confidence and social connections.

The Ballivor CE scheme is unique, as we have our own in-house trainer - she is sitting here beside me - who is a CE supervisor. She delivers QQI levels five and six training, now known as one and two, to all the participants who wish to enter childcare. That is a huge bonus because she can give extra support to those who need it. These are people who may have left school early, people in their 30s who never had the confidence to think they could achieve anything within the education system. We find it is absolutely huge to them that they have this person who will hold one-to-one meetings with them twice a week at night to support them.

Recruitment continues to be a challenge. It varies between regions, although we have seen some improvement in recent months, particularly in Dublin. We continue to actively advertise roles online, host coffee mornings, participate in job fairs and engage directly with social welfare and, when payment has been made, An Post. However, we are sometimes there and nobody turns up. We had a coffee morning and we had to send for somebody to come because the host felt embarrassed when there was nobody coming in the door. What we find from these outings is that many people still do not understand CE and do not know an awful lot about it.

Based on our experience, we have several key recommendations to the Department. At the moment, for the settled community, the age of entry to a CE scheme is 21. We would like to see that reduced to 18. It used to cost 25, and a number of years ago we advocated for it to be reduced to 21, which the Department did. We would now like to see it reduced to 18 in order to catch children, give them the opportunity at an early age to gain skills and education and guide them in the right direction as to where they might want to go.

We suggest reducing the qualifying timeframe for eligibility, as it currently stands at a year on the back to work allowance and many potential participants become financially comfortable on the payment they receive during that 12 months. They lose the motivation to re-enter work for very little additional money. It is something like €27 extra, so people do not see the value. They may have to travel. That is a barrier to getting people back to work.

We recommend an increase in the Department's referrals to our scheme and the introduction of penalties for suitable candidates who refuse or avoid placement. To give an example, we had a qualified childcare practitioner come for interview who was eligible to get a place, but she informed us that she could not start before 9 o'clock and she could really only work up to 11 o'clock. She should not have been getting the back to work allowance because she was not available for work. We get many people who will actually come for interview because the Department has sent them or told them they have to go but who really have no intention of joining the scheme. We get some excellent candidates, so let us look at the positive also.

We recommend the strengthening of communication between sponsor and the Department to ensure timely co-ordination of and response to local needs.

Finally, I wish to highlight some of the successes coming out of CE. Participants who began on CE with little confidence have gone on to achieve level 7 and level 8 degrees in childcare, become CE supervisors themselves or qualified as accounts technicians. These stories are testament to the work that happens within the CE programme, as it supports and empowers them and gives them the opportunity to grow.

I thank committee members for their attention and I welcome any questions.

I thank Ms Daly. I now invite Ms Anne Fitzgerald from Liffey Partnership to make her opening remarks.

I thank the Cathaoirleach and members of the committee for affording us this opportunity to present on the Tús programme today. While presenting on behalf of Liffey Partnership today, I am also very cognisant our company is a member of the local development companies network, LDCN. We have developed a number of position papers so our presentation today draws from both our unique local experience and our nationally and collectively identified experience. Tús is only located within local development companies in Ireland. Tús began in 2011 and for the past 14 years, local development companies, including ourselves in Liffey Partnership, have delivered Tús to urban communities, rural communities and members of communities that are new to Tús like people with disabilities and members of the Ukrainian community.

Tús is a very successful programme. There has been a really positive experience of working with the Department of Social Protection on the rollout of Tús and the collective, shared engagement on a commitment to learning together and codesign. We do not always fully agree but there are more agreements than not. It is very positive in showing that when a Department or a unit is very prepared to work with people on the ground directly, good things happen for everyone, particularly the participants.

Liffey Partnership is a community-led social inclusion organisation and a key provider of community-based employment supports for those facing labour market disadvantage, including people experiencing long-term unemployment, people with disabilities, people with mental health challenges or caring responsibilities, or those with backgrounds of poverty, low education and intergenerational social exclusion. In addition to Tús, these supports are delivered via other programmes within the partnership families such as SICAP, community employment, local area employment services, workability, and back to work enterprise allowance as well as a whole host of family support programmes, mental health programmes and so on.

In Liffey Partnership, we deliver our services on an integrated basis, meaning that people can access a range of complementary services – across employment, education and training, health and well-being and parenting services - under one roof. Tús is one gateway programme into our full range of programmes within the organisation. That is one of the hallmarks of the success of the programme, as it located within local development programmes. One system feeds the other system.

Nationally, Tús was established in 2011. The core objectives of the Tús programme are twofold: first, to assist those who are most distant from the labour market to build confidence, skills, and overall job readiness; and second, to support the provision of community organisations and services and the capacity of community-based organisations to deliver on their objectives. The evidence, and our evidence in particular, is very strong that Tús is effective across both of these fronts. A recent OECD evaluation of Tús and CE found that people who participate in Tús are more likely to engage in unsubsidised work thereafter; that is, leave the live register and progress to employment. As a gateway programme, it is particularly successful for most cohorts in our experience. In terms of the contribution of participants to their local communities, 4,535 people currently participate in Tús, meaning that Tús participants have contributed almost 4.6 million hours to community projects in 2025 to-date.

However, it is important to reflect on the economic environment from which Tús first emerged, and the economic environment in which it operates today – and what the change actually means. When Tús was first established, unemployment in Ireland was 16.1%, equating to over 361,000 people unemployed. Today, unemployment is 4.7%, or 138,00 people. This rate has not climbed above 5% since the beginning of 2022, meaning that Ireland’s economy has been operating in a state of full employment for almost four years, which is a much longer stretch of continuous full employment than was experienced at any time during the Celtic Tiger. In this context, we ask why is Tús still important? We are of the view, and believe the evidence, including that supplied by DSP, supports the view that Tús is as important now as it was back in the crisis of 2011. The people on Tús now are different and this is a key point to make. When we were operating Tús back in 2011, most people were highly qualified. Many of them came out of the construction trades. They were newly unemployed and had skills. We put those skills to work for social benefit in the community.

However, the cohort of those now on Tús is drastically different. It now serves two main purposes; one for those who find it particularly difficult to sustain employment in the open labour market because they are not a fit anymore for the types of jobs that are out there. They are typically much older, often male and might be early school leavers. The second group it is particularly useful for is those who have yet to enter the labour market, such as younger people. We very much welcome the changes to allow people with disabilities and younger people to access the programme.

It is also of particular benefit for those in new communities, as it affords opportunities for integration and language acquisition. That will be seen in every town and village throughout the country. On the local picture, Liffey Partnership was the former Ballyfermot-Chapelizod partnership and we provide Tús in the geographical areas of Dublin 2, 4, 8 in the inner city and Dublin 10 and 20 in the Ballyfermot, Chapelizod and Palmerstown areas of west Dublin. The Tús programme works in collaboration with all community groups, charities and non-profit organisations within these areas, which are core community groups within the area. The partnership’s core values include equity, inclusion, participation and empowerment, and its Tús programme considers that everyone has an equal right to support and life opportunities to reach their potential. The Liffey Partnership programme, as of the end of last week, has 165 employees on payroll, out of a target of 160. It consistently achieves 90% to 100% participant placement and provides vital support to community gardens, sports clubs, community radio stations and citizens information centres, to name a few.

There are a number of reasons for this success. First, Liffey Partnership operates from the belief that there is a suitable placement for every eligible individual. We work to build jobs in community organisations for participants that match their skills, abilities and interests. We are also fortunate with the availability of a wide variety of civil society organizations within the Dublin area, which complements our "participant first" model in Liffey Partnership. Liffey Partnership adopts of a whole organisational approach to client registration, meaning that every Tús client of Liffey Partnership has the opportunity to avail of all Liffey Partnership services. Many of our current cohort need additional supports. They get that through other supports within the partnership.

When meeting clients, the Tús team leaders discuss with the client their skill sets, their education, previous employment they may have experienced and what interests them, what they value and what they feel would benefit them. We very much take the approach of what do people want to do rather than tell them we have this job over here and we want somebody to fill that job. We have turned that on its head. It is win-win if the job is built around the people and, at the same time, meet the needs of the community. As some examples of this, there are actors that teach drama to after-school classes. There are artists that work with youth groups. There are museum tour guides. There are clients learning to upcycle and to sew and to weave. There are clients who learn sound engineering and provide befriending services to older community residents. There are also many essential community roles filled by the Tús programme such as traditional roles like caretaking, cleaning, reception, administration, retail assistants and so on.

In addition, the Tús programme oversees a "helping hands" service that employs eight Tús participants at the moment.

Helping hands provide non-trade handyman-type services such as gardening and indoor maintenance to people over 55 or those with disabilities in our communities.

We were delighted with the opening-up in 2022 of the Tús programme to people with Ukrainian temporary protection status. This has been a lifeline for many of our companies throughout Ireland and provides opportunities, very important in our current culture, in relation to inclusion. At the moment, our current caseload of 165 consists of 85 males and 80 females. A total of 26 are under 25, 49 have temporary protection status, two are members of the Travelling community, 13 are on disability allowance and 14 are clients from new communities living in the areas we support, including people from the African continent, Afghanistan, Türkiye, El Salvador, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania.

We see the Tús programme as a pathway to social inclusion. The partnership understands that people are empowered when they feel valued and supported and strives to provide Tús placements that encompass these experiences for their clients. The Tús programme has multiple benefits for both the individuals working within it and the community organisations that act as host organisations for the programme. The partnership finds that by participating in our Tús programme, people feel accepted and included in their local community. Individuals involved in the Tús programme benefit greatly from finding a purpose through employment, gaining skills and confidence. By contributing to their community through their employment, they feel empowered, included and valued.

At the moment there are 100-plus community organisations that are hosts to the Liffey Partnership Tús programme. Liffey Partnership's service delivery approach to the participants who are employed on the Tús programme and to the community organisations that are supported creates a synergy. It is about the opportunities that exist within Dublin meeting the availability of a highly talented pool of people whose potential has not been realised yet.

We have some recommendations, some of which are more national and some of which are specific. Tús is needed now, very importantly, so we are looking for it to move from an activation to a social inclusion programme.

We will not have time to go through all the recommendations, Ms Fitzgerald.

That is fine. Thank you.

The briefing document has been circulated to members, so we might just open up the floor for some questions and answers. I know members want to engage directly with the three host organisations today, and a number of speakers have asked to come in. I might give members four minutes each. That includes responses to their questions. Members, be very conscious of that. Please direct your questions to the host organisations and they will reply. First up is Deputy Mark Wall.

I thank our guests. They are a very good example of what community groups do in the State day in, day out. Their evidence today replicates what I see in my area of County Kildare. Again, I thank them for all the work they do, which is important to us all in all our communities.

I have a couple of questions and observations. Starting with the rural social scheme and Ms Murphy, there are roughly 900 vacancies there at the moment. One of the issues I have had in the past with the rural scheme is those who do not classify themselves as farmers but are farmers. They are living in rural Ireland. I am from rural Ireland myself. Is there a case for building the scheme for more rural people who may actually have a tentative association with the farming community and who are the heartbeat of our rural communities, as we all know? Ms Murphy might comment on that. I know people who have failed to qualify but who do a bit of work with the local farmer, etc. They are very much part of the rural community.

I was very interested to hear the comments on the childcare scheme because, obviously, we have a childcare crisis in this country. Maybe the witnesses could develop that a bit, how the CE scheme helps provide places. I am very interested as well in Ms Finney's education of the participants. Is that something she does through the CE scheme? Is it an additional skill she brings forward? Many of the people I deal with have to go to further education classes, etc., to get the education that she seems to be providing. Ms Finney might comment on that as well because that is very important and very welcome.

There is an issue here with early school leavers, whether it is Youthreach or whether it is putting them on a CE scheme. It is an issue for us all in our communities that we have those who, for whatever reason, leave school at 15 or 16 and it is very hard to integrate them into our communities. Tús and CE have a part to play in integrating those young people and getting them into a work ethic, which is an issue for many of them. The witnesses might comment on that as well. I know we are at 21 at the moment, but we should look at allowing anybody who wants to get involved in the community-----

Thank you.

Just one more question, Chair, if that is okay. I just want to make the comment that a lot of the people-----

A question or a comment?

A comment and a question. I have four minutes, Chair, do I?

Well, you have four minutes including the reply. To be fair, I want to leave an opportunity for the agencies to reply to you, Deputy, so maybe you could come in at the end with the extra question if that is all right.

Unfortunately, I will not be here, but thank you. I will-----

Ms Murphy, we will talk to you first then about-----

Thank you.

I thank the Deputy for raising the issue of the potential additionality to the rural social scheme through extra places and filling the void of the 900 places. One of the outcomes of the review in 2024 was that the rural dweller scheme will provide 250 extra places for people who are not necessarily connected primarily to a herd number or a fishing licence. That is a game changer. We fought hard for that because we are from north County Cork, traditionally quite a wealthy area, and we found it very hard to establish the rural social scheme. In Deputy O'Shea's area, it was a slightly different context. We have always welcomed something that would broaden the base for qualification. The only thing they have to be aware of is that they have to be in receipt of a social welfare payment. With the Department's help, we will go out - and that is announced by the Minister - and broadcast it and help them to come to that place. Like Deputy Wall's area in Kildare, one would know somebody who may be working part-time or whatever who would qualify. We will help them and that will broaden it.

That is good.

Ms Daly or Ms Finney, do you want to respond in terms of childcare?

We have only four minutes so I really cannot cover the crisis in childcare, but yes, we do have a crisis in childcare, and mainly we have a crisis in childcare staff. The Department gives money for buildings but we can build all we like. We must get the staff. As for my take on why we do not have the staff, the staff - childcare professionals - do not get the recognition from the general public for the important work they do. How does CE help? When participants come onto the CE scheme and identify that they are interested in childcare, they have three months to start. We train them up. Ms Finney does the training. They are then 99.99% assured of a job. That is how we look at the CE scheme. It benefits in a lot of ways. That is childcare, but we also have the auxiliary staff. We have a maintenance team and cooks. It all feeds into this. Because we are community, we need that support. Yes, we get money from the Department and we are always very grateful for that money, but outside of just delivering childcare, it takes a whole unit to deliver childcare, not just the childcare professionals. For us, CE is fantastic because we can train the people to the way we want them trained, we know they are trained well and, therefore, they get a job. As I said, because we cover the whole of Meath and three services in south Dublin, they are nearly guaranteed a job.

I will let Ms Finney answer what Deputy Wall asked her.

I worked in childcare for 15 years prior to studying. During that time, I worked my way up through my education and did my degree in childcare. Then I did a degree in child psychology. I did Montessori teaching previously. They get one-to-one tuition. The childcare scheme used to be QQI level 5, level 6 and level 7. Now it has changed and they are trying to combine it and streamline it, so they have ELC stage 1 and stage 2. There are not a lot of places delivering it at the moment, and anywhere that does is predominantly online. A lot of our clientele are just not able for that, so they benefit more with the one-to-one classroom delivery. It is a matter of constant contact and the support and feedback on their work. For any literacy problems they have, we provide any supports they need, even through the way the course is delivered.

If people are not very competent at typing, for example, I give the option to record their voice or, if they are not quite literate enough for writing, to use podcasts or presentations. Whatever way they want to deliver it and whatever helps them, that is how they will present their work.

I thank Ms Finney. Deputy Roche is next, with four minutes for questions and replies.

I will use my four minutes mostly for commentary. If I were catapulted into the Minister's position and working with the Department, the witnesses before us and the witnesses earlier, I would embrace everything that has been said here today and the recommendations given. It is a very good story and the benefits to the community that have been outlined are compelling.

An example of how people can develop and mature concerns somebody very close to my heart. A young mother took on a FÁS scheme and did exactly what Ms Finney outlined, going on to a diploma in childcare and, as a consequence, starting work in the local national school. That person, like many others, felt she did not have the confidence, the courage or, indeed, the time to do that. It was absolutely transformative for that young mum to be able to do it. She grew in confidence and was able to demonstrate how, with a little encouragement and a bit of a push, people can do great things.

That was possible because of the services and supports available through schemes like Tús, the RSS and many others. The case for the benefit accruing from the schemes is compelling. When Ms Fitzgerald was giving her statement, I wondered whether she and her colleagues had any time at all for themselves with the workload they have. One would be deluded not to embrace everything that was presented here today. It is a great story. The Minister is very aware of the benefit of these schemes to rural Ireland. I am heartened by his and the Department's support for what the witnesses are doing and their vision for the future. As I said, if I were in charge, the witnesses would be pushing an open door and I would positively embrace all the points made today.

It was great to hear about the success story of Ballivor and Trim in my area. Well done to Ms Finney on her efforts regarding childcare.

I have a couple of points. We need to tap in more to the people who have come here in the past few years from other countries. Reference was made to 1,200 people from Ukraine and 500 from elsewhere. We could tap into that cohort more. It is difficult at the moment to recruit people to these positions. I dealt with somebody who was working in a graveyard for two years. When that man's time on the scheme was up, nobody else could be found to do the job and he was no longer allowed to do it. Even if he did a couple of courses during the year, that broke his employment, which was another barrier for him.

Ms Daly mentioned that the €32 a week is a burden for a lot of people. I raised earlier with the other witnesses that the cost of travel to the schemes may be more than what they get at the end of the week. Although there is an additional €5 in January, it is very small money, even when added up for 19,000 people. We should be able to do more. Will the new criteria be sufficient to be keep workers on the RSS, Tús and CE schemes if they want to remain on them? A lot of it comes down to that €32.

Many older people on Tús are making a very valuable contribution to their local community, as the Deputy said. The open labour market does not place value on those people any more. For example, they might have worked on a building site or been a plasterer and their shoulders are gone, but they are very happy in the job they are doing now. One of our recommendations is that those aged over 58 should, by their own choice, be able to stay on the programme until they reach State pension age. We have had many people who were very upset when their time was up, asking when they could come back. Society benefits for the sake of the extra few bob to the State. The State is saving a fortune on mental health services. To me, it is a no-brainer. It is completely a social benefit to Irish society and all our organisations.

To take up Ms Fitzgerald's point, two takeaways from today are her point on people aged over 58 and Ms Daly's suggestion that the lower age limit be reduced from 21 to 18. We need to expand inclusion of both cohorts, the young and the older, and give them peace of mind.

I thank Ms Murphy for her contribution. She spoke about the RSS and representing the 38 local development companies. Mr. Hedigan is a participant on the scheme. It is very important to hear the voice of participants. We value them very much and what they do right across the country. If he had a magic wand, what would he say we should work on to recognise the voice of the participant?

I will give my story as a participant. I have been 20 years on the scheme, having started in 2005. I am based, if that is the right word to use, in Horizons in Mallow, formerly the Cope Foundation, which helps people born with Down's syndrome, etc. It is a very good fit for me because I have a sister who has Down's syndrome. I grew up with her and it was natural to me, if that is the right way to put it. My sister is a service user where I am in Mallow. From a novice's point of view, the scheme is very valuable. I am one of the lucky ones in that social isolation does not really come into the equation for me. I do not have time for it, if the Senator knows what I mean. I have a big involvement in sport. However, we have lads with us now who are single men. The scheme is of huge benefit to single farmers. I am not saying that is not also true for married men but it is of particular benefit to single people who may see nobody from one end of the week to the other.

Absolutely.

We have 18 people in our group. There is one man who rings our supervisor at 4 o'clock every Friday just for a conversation. I cannot say he does not speak to somebody else during the week but he rings every Friday.

It is his routine.

It is just his routine.

From a farmer's perspective, flexibility is a huge factor. We do not work 9 to 5. I could be going out to do my job on a Tuesday and my next door neighbour's cattle could be coming down the passage against me, which means I have to spend two hours sorting that out. The flexibility works on both sides. As I said, I am big into sport. Three years ago, we started a tag rugby team that is specially adapted for people with disabilities. I have a licence to drive a minibus and am the only person in the centre who can drive it. If I do not go in, they do not get out. There are people carriers but only four passengers can be taken in them, whereas I can put 16 in the minibus and off we go. We have been to tournaments in Belfast and Dublin, sometimes staying overnight. The really big one was three years ago when we went to an international tournament in Coventry. Four staff members took 12 service users with us. I am classified as staff at this stage.

Two of them had never been on a train and five of them had never been on a plane. Does the Senator know what I mean? It was a huge issue for them. We found it hard enough to get 12 to go the first year, but this year we had 20 wanting to go. It just snowballed. It is huge.

I am the only male staff member in the centre as well. We do have some what I would call men's men, for the want of a better word. They go to my car when they see me coming in the gate. It might be to tell a joke or just to ask me something or whatever else, where they would not ask a female, if the Senator knows what I am saying.

The 18 of us are a very friendly group. I do not know them all personally because some of them are fairly new. I am based in Mallow and some of them are based in Fermoy. We meet once a year at a minimum. We have a Christmas lunch every year. We all meet for Christmas lunch in the first week in December. It is also a great support for people who retire. They are still kept in the loop. We bring them back for the Christmas lunch the year after they retire, just to get the old gang together again. I do know that some of the supervisors are in constant contact with them even when they have been gone for two years. It is a kind of social thing as much as anything else. That is basically my thing.

There was talk about money a minute ago. If €50 was taken off me, I would still do it, if the Senator knows what I mean. It is part of my week. I look forward to going in there. Mainly, I think that I do make some bit of a difference. Unfortunately, I am the oldest person in the building. The manager is a new lady who is young enough and she would often come to me and ask my opinion on something. She says I am here a lot longer than she is and I know the run of this place better than she does. That is my general experience of the rural social scheme.

I thank Mr. Hedigan.

That encapsulates it all actually. They are very much the thread and part of the fabric within their grouping or their organisation. We cannot put a price on that. While I wish I had the time with the Department earlier on, I would have loved to have asked how we support disability organisations, in particular section 38s and 39s. I know that so many CE, Tús and RSS people are part and parcel of the fabric because the voluntary sector struggles to survive without the input from all of the different groups. I thank John very much.

When Anne spoke earlier, she said we are in a different ecosystem now than we were in 2011. There is an opportunity now for the Department to look at supporting the community childcare crèches, and to expand and develop the model of teaching and learning, in the same way as with builders in the past. Now it is the young people who might have gone into their rooms during Covid and found it hard to come out of them. There is great experience across the hall, but there was also great experience from the Department earlier. It could look at the new model.

I acknowledge the presence of officials from the Departments of Rural and Community Development and Social Protection here earlier. I also acknowledge the fact that we still have two departmental representatives here to listen to exactly what the witnesses are saying and the recommendations they are putting forward. I do not often see that happen on committees so I want to acknowledge it.

First, I would like to ask Valerie a couple of questions. Either Valerie or John can respond. I will not repeat what has been said. Underpinning vibrant, sustainable rural communities, villages and towns can only mean one thing. That is that we get more houses built in our area and that we allow people who want to stay in their area to live in a rural community or in a rural village. They must be allowed to stay there. There are huge restrictions on planning at the moment and also with infrastructure in terms of water and sewerage. I know there was an announcement yesterday and we have to see the detail of what is going to cost. We are not going to get people to build homes if they have to build a huge expensive water system or sewerage system. That will not work. Unless we can get people to live in rural communities, they will not thrive. I agree with what has been said about that.

There is no need for a herd number any more. The Department has said that. That is a huge improvement. I would have came across that.

As Valerie has said, it is difficult now to get people in. Sometimes, you actually have to go out and identify people that are suitable for the job. I presume she is doing that. Some people need a little bit of a push to bring them in. It is a huge change for people who were doing something and then they are going to work on a voluntary scheme, no matter where it is - be it the graveyards, the GAA pitch, soccer pitch or whatever it is. It can be a huge turnaround and once people are past the first day or two, they are delighted and they become part of it. That is maybe another idea.

The rural development pilot scheme, which was introduced, ring-fenced 200 place for rural dwellers who are over the age of 50 years. That is fierce important. I would like Valerie to comment on that for me. These are things that I would have written and asked previous Ministers for.

The witnesses are very lucky to have the walking trail. It is fierce important for anybody who has it. I am trying to get one developed in my own area. That has benefitted the scheme greatly as well in terms of participation. We can see that in the fact that the scheme was awarded 100%. That is all.

I thank Marie for the work she is doing. I know that she is hands on because of the way she is able to talk about it. I can always judge a person by what they are able to do. I agree with the point she made about the lower entry age. That used to be 25. It was very difficult for the likes of me as a public representative to understand who was making that law or where it was coming from. I see that it did come down to 28, but in my opinion it should be down to 18 years of age. I agree with Marie. Why would you leave a person not doing something? They get into a rut at that stage. If a person is available at 18 then let him or her start at 18 years of age. I have always said that. It has come down but if we could get it down to 18 it would make more sense. I support the witnesses on that. Another point was to reduce the qualifying timeframe. These are all very good things that the witnesses are putting forward that will actually see benefits on the ground.

The point about childcare was very well made. It is everywhere. That is the biggest thing that we have at the moment. We must get times to suit people in order to get them in on schemes. We must be flexible. That is fierce important.

I concur with everything that has been said. All the recommendations that have been made by the witnesses can be taken by the people here today and worked on. They refer to all the good things that have come in and all the changes that have been made, like the age, and the fact that people had to come off schemes because they were on it for too long. That is all changed now, rightly so. I had people coming to me begging me to talk to the supervisor to see if they could be kept on because they love the job. The scheme was telling people they had to go. They used to go back and do it on a voluntary basis, just to let on that they were still working. That made no sense, especially when there is a lot of employment. I am not here to butter people up because they are not from my area but without people like the people here today we would not have the very valuable contribution of the people under schemes in our communities.

Valerie might respond first on the RSS and we will go to Marie then.

I want to clarify that the rural social scheme is an income support to farmers that are on a qualifying payment already, which is generally farm assist. The additional places and the spreading still have to be aligned with the farm enterprise in some form, but they do have to have a qualifying payment. The herd number is in situ. You have to have a herd or fishing number for the downstream people to qualify as well, as part of the overall farm family or enterprise, so that has not changed.

What will make a difference though is the broadening of the qualifying conditions. We will and we do interact with Teagasc, the IFA and the Department of Social Protection who communicate widely. Whether people look at it or not is another thing. We have no control over that. Then there are the differentiating factors between the areas. The western seaboard has a bigger, higher cohort of people on RSS than, let us say, we would have in north Cork in the area where I operate.

There are a variety of reasons for this. The profile of the farmer at the gate would be wealthier. The farms in the area are diminishing and being taken over by bigger enterprises. The review of 2024 was really very welcome. It was comprehensive. There are more recommendations which, I am sure, the Department will deal with in its own time, because it does listen.

There is one more thing, which is the continuity of contract. That is very important for farm families. It is huge. You would see someone like Mr. Hedigan, someone on a CE scheme or Tús, for 20 years. We are the local development company. We have the whole cohort of programmes, including CE and Tús. Continuity is key for both the farm family and for local service provision. I thank the Department very much.

I thank Deputy Aird for his comments. When it was 25, I approached the Department to reduce it to 21. That happened very quickly. There was no pushback; it just did it. I am a logical person. It seems to me that if these people are going to be on the back-to-work allowance or getting some other social welfare payment, it is of more benefit if they are also doing something and contributing to society while getting that payment. I recently spoke to a gentleman who is on a CE scheme with us. He is in his late 50s. He had a very good job. People would say he was overqualified for CE. One day, I asked him how he liked CE. He said that he had a good job in the bank but had an injury and could not work there any more. He said he thought his life was over but that was when I came along. He was not really talking about me. I am not that popular. He was talking about CE. He works as a receptionist. He said that he got his life back at 48 because of CE. He is working as the receptionist for a childcare service but he would do absolutely anything you wanted him to do. That is an example. Why would that man be paid for sitting at home, getting depressed, letting his confidence go and thinking he is of no value to anybody when his life could be changed all of a sudden? He never misses a day's work. The Deputy is right. I do not see a logical reason to leave people at the age of 18 growing up on a social welfare payment when they could be on CE, getting skills.

As both of my colleagues stated, we have a maintenance team, all bar two of whom are on CE. We gave the ones who left gainful employment. They carry out valuable work to help all of those community services, which could not afford to bring in tradesmen. There are trades there and they are valued. These people have absolutely bought into their jobs. It is not that they just come in and say that they will do something but then have to go home again. They have bought into it.

Would Ms Fitzgerald like to make a final comment?

I will defer to my colleague.

On the older cohort a few of the members mentioned, in Liffey Partnership, we have noticed that many people we now engage with are either already homeless or become homeless while we are working with them. We have a lot of people, particularly in our inner city areas, who live in hostels. In some of the hostels, you have to be out for a certain amount of time each day. Having a Tús position is incredibly valuable for these people. Not only does it give them a purpose to leave the hostel, but it also gives them a certain income. It is not a huge amount. It is about €100 to €120 extra a month. If you are in that situation, it is a good incentive. However, it is more about the value of the role to them, particularly when considering the long term for those older people who will more than likely remain living in a hostel for a good while into the future. For such people, staying in a Tús role or on a scheme makes a big difference.

I thank Ms Daly, Ms Fitzgerald, Ms Finney, Ms O'Connell, Ms Murphy and Mr. Hedigan for their contributions. This has been a very important and positive day for the Department, for the communities and for the organisations represented here today. It was important for us to showcase and go through the RSS, the CE schemes and the Tús scheme to give us, as legislators, a better understanding of what is involved. A lot of work for this committee has come out of our discussions with all of the organisations and the Department today. I thank everybody for their attendance. It has been really worthwhile. I thank them for making the journey to be with us and for their honesty and integrity as part of their work. It is very much appreciated.