Seán Barrett
Question:18 Mr. Barrett asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment whether there is unnecessary duplication in the parallel development of placement services by his Department and the Department of Social Welfare.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Development of Placement Service.
I take it that the Deputy is referring to the appointment by the Minister for Social Welfare of job facilitators in his Department and the extent to which their proposed responsibilities correspond to the duties of FÁS placement officers.
Discussions are currently under way to ensure the maximum co-ordination of effort by the Department of Social Welfare and my Department in conjunction with FÁS.
The objective is to ensure that persons who are regularly signing-on, but not contacting the FÁS offices as well, are guided and assisted in seeking and obtaining suitable employment.
Would the Minister agree that it is hard for the public to understand why placement officers should be in both FÁS offices and social welfare offices? If the location of placement officers in labour exchanges is beneficial why can the Minister not arrange to have such officers in labour exchanges? Would he not agree that social welfare officers do not have the training in employment placement or the familiarity with the work place that the specialist officers reporting to his Department have? Would he not also agree that it seems foolish duplication to create a separate placement service in a Department which for a long time now has not had any experience in dealing with this issue?
That view has been expressed, but as against that there is a need to ensure that those who are signing on regularly in conditions where the only transaction that can be done in many of the social welfare offices is simply to sign on and to collect the money, can be identified and guided to the FÁS offices. In many cases the research has pointed out that people who are signing on consistently in social welfare offices are not making any effort to go to FÁS offices. This is an attempt to co-ordinate the two activities. There is no great duplication but there is a certain overlap for the purpose of ensuring that people who are signing on regularly and who could find suitable employment are encouraged to start looking for it. In many cases the experience of the placement officer in the social welfare system has been that people are not looking for work.
I am surprised that the Minister says there is no duplication involved. The one stop shop which has been developed has available to it both placement officers and social welfare people. Is it not true that the Department of Enterprise and Employment and the placement service very much resented the establishment of the job of facilitator and that proper discussions had not taken place between the Minister's Department and the Department of Social Welfare with a view to bringing this idea to fruition? Would the Minister not agree that where placement officers are in any case involved in trying to plan training courses, it would be preferable by far for the Social Welfare office to refer such people to the placement officer should they require advice to facilitate them in getting a job, and that the establishment of this job of facilitator is an entirely unnecessary exercise?
I do not agree that it is entirely unnecessary. There is a certain degree of overlapping but if it has the overall effect of ensuring that all people signing on are encouraged to the maximum to avail of work that is available in some areas, it is a worthwhile exercise. The Minister, Deputy Woods and I have ensured——
Workers training courses, in most of those areas.
People who avail of training courses offered do not resent doing so. If Deputies are suggesting——
It could be easily done by placement officers.
Please allow the Minister to reply to the question.
I get numerous requests from Deputies from all sides of the House to find places on training courses for constituents but I do not get letters from Deputies saying that their constituents resent being offered places on such courses. Let us not demean a very useful instrument that is available.
With respect, I will not take a lecture from the Minister.
Deputy Finucane, this is not a time for statements.
I worked with FÁS for ten years. I know what is happening, so let the Minister not make smart innuendoes and give us waffle. He does not know the facts behind this.
Please allow the Minister to respond to your question.
I would have thought that the Deputy of all people, having worked for ten years with FÁS, would have been the last person to demean training courses.
I very much resent that innuendo. Would the Minister please withdraw it?
No, I will not, because——
The Minister is not aware of the facts. He has come in with prepared responses and alternative questions.
Deputy Finucane, please desist. This is not appropriate to Question Time. The Deputy asked a question and the Minister is endeavouring to respond to it.
The Minister has smeared me in relation to an organisation in which I worked for 11 years. I have much respect for FÁS, I know it far better than the Minister. I will not accept innuendoes at this stage.
I am asking the Minister to finalise the answer to the questions.
When replying I heard, perhaps incorrectly — and if I heard it incorrectly I will unreservedly withdraw what I said — that in most cases the people were being offered training places.
The point I am making is that placement officers could well advise people as to where training courses were available, that there was no need for a facilitator to be involved in doing exactly the same thing.
That is not a smear——
The Minister without interruption, please.
I will try to reply to the question. The people to whom the Deputy refers, the FÁS placement officers, are in offices to which many of the customers, or the signing on applicants in the social welfare offices, never go in the first instance. This is an effort to ensure that there is co-ordination. I am well aware of the disquiet expressed by some people in some of the FÁS offices throughout the country. I suspect that the Deputy, because of his experience, is more aware of it than I am. We have an obligation at national level to ensure co-ordination between people signing on and looking for work through the FÁS network. I accept that there is a degree of duplication and overlapping but it is minimal relative to the objective of ensuring maximum efficiency in the operation of the labour market.
Will the Minister accept the point I was making?
I want to facilitate other Deputies who have tabled questions. I will allow a final supplementary.
Will the Minister agree that there is no clear relationship between the enterprise allowance scheme run by his Department to permit people to set up in business as self employed and the back to work scheme run by the Department of Social Welfare, and that this is creating confusion for those who wish to avail of those schemes?
I do not accept that there is confusion. There are two schemes running in tandem.