Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Education and Social Protection debate -
Wednesday, 15 Oct 2014

Pathways to Work: Department of Social Protection

I welcome Ms Anne Vaughan, Mr. John McKeon, Mr. Terry Corcoran and Mr. Brendan Friel from the Department of Social Protection.

I wish to draw the attention of witnesses to the fact that by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give this committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. Witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

The opening statement submitted to the committee will be published on the committee website after the meeting.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Please switch all phones off, or put them on flight mode.

Today's meeting is to consider Pathways to Work 2015, which was launched by the Taoiseach and Tánaiste last week. The Pathways to Work strategy was originally launched in 2012 and has been updated and renewed on an annual basis since then. It seeks to ensure that as many newly-created jobs as possible go to people on the live register. Today we will hear a presentation from the Department of Social Protection. I invite Ms Vaughan and Mr. McKeon to make the presentation.

Ms Anne Vaughan

I thank the committee for the opportunity to appear before it today for the discussion on Pathways to Work. I am joined by my colleagues, John McKeon, assistant secretary with responsibility labour activation; Brendan Friel, principal officer with responsibility for contracted employment services; and Terry Corcoran, principal officer with responsibility for labour market and activation policy. The purpose of this opening statement is to provide the committee with an overview of Pathways to Work with a particular focus on JobPath. We will be happy to address any questions that the committee members may have at the conclusion of the statement.

I understand the Chairman is aware that the statement is slightly longer than normal, but that is because there is so much to cover.

How many pages are in it?

Ms Anne Vaughan

Perhaps 12 pages.

All right. Ms Vaughan should stick to that but no longer please.

Ms Anne Vaughan

As members of the committee will be aware, Pathways to Work, hereafter Pathways, was first launched in 2012 to cover the period 2012 to 2015. In tandem with the Action Plan for Jobs, Pathways is intended to address the challenge posed by the dramatic rise in the level of unemployment during the recession. Put simply, the purpose of the Action Plan for Jobs is to stimulate growth in employment, while the purpose of Pathways is to direct this growth towards people on the live register. To this end the Government, under Pathways, committed to a number of ambitious process, organisation and policy reforms designed to deliver on a number of aggressive targets. These included, for example, a target to move 75,000 people who were long-term unemployed at the start of 2012 into employment by the end of 2015 and a target to achieve a 50% increase in the progression rate of people who are more than two years unemployed.

To date, the Pathways programme has delivered on a number of significant reforms. I will not list them all here, but will mention a few. They include the integration of three previously separate organisations – the Community Welfare Service, FÁS employment services, and Department of Social Protection income support services - into the one-stop-shop Intreo service provided by the Department of Social Protection; the re-organisation of the State's further education and training services through the creation of education and training boards, ETBs, and SOLAS; the development of a new operating model as part of Intreo that has yielded significant reductions in claim processing times and faster and more systematic provision of employment services; the provision or refurbishment of 44 new Intreo offices around the country, with a further 16 to be completed over the coming months; the introduction of a social contract of rights and responsibilities between jobseekers and the State, through the record of mutual commitment; the formation of a labour market council of industry leaders and labour market specialists to monitor and advise on the implementation of Pathways; the establishment of employer services division within the Department - this division works closely with employers, both on a one-to-one basis and through events such as JobsWeek or agencies such as Skillnets, to promote recruitment from the live register; the introduction and-or roll-out of new services such as JobsPlus, Tús, Gateway, JobBridge and MOMENTUM; and the design and the procurement of a new contracted model of employment service delivery - JobPath.

There are definite signs that these changes are having an impact in improving the employment prospects of people who are unemployed. At a macro level official figures from the CSO show that. The unemployment rate has fallen to 11.1%, the lowest rate in five years and down from a peak of just over 15% in 2011. The long-term unemployment rate fell to 6.8% in mid-2014, down from 9.2% in mid-2012. The number of long-term unemployed people has fallen from over 200,000 in early 2012 to under 150,000 at present. The youth unemployment rate has fallen to 27%, down from a peak of 33% in mid-2012, while in absolute terms the number of young people unemployed was down by 21,400 from 74,000 to 52,600 over the same period.

Members will be aware that there is a wide consensus among forecasters that these positive trends are set to continue with the Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI, for example, forecasting that unemployment will fall to 9.6% on average next year. With regard to the specific targets identified in Pathways to Work, over 55,000 people who were long-term unemployed at the start of 2012 have now moved into employment while the progression rate of people who were more than two years unemployed has already reached the target level of 40%. This level of performance is attributable at least in part to the measures taken under the Pathways programme, for example, we know that over 60% of people who find employment under the JobsPlus scheme were more than two years unemployed; similarly, progression rates under JobBridge are some 60% and under MOMENTUM they are approximately 40%. These reflect the impact these services can make on the prospects of people who have had prolonged periods of unemployment. In addition, we know our engagement with employers has resulted in the successful placement into employment of people from the live register into companies such as Eishtec, PayPal, and HP, to name but a few.

The purpose of Pathways to Work 2015, published last week, is to set out those actions that it is intended to take over the next 15 months to maintain the momentum and complete the programme of reforms set out in 2012. This updated Pathways statement takes particular account of input and advice from the Labour Market Council and places a focus on the development and implementation of an account management approach to help enhance the provision of services to employers, as a means of securing employment opportunities for unemployed jobseekers; the full implementation of Youth Guarantee initiatives including the developmental internship, which is an enhanced JobsPlus offer for young people and reserved places on training programmes; the introduction of a back to work family dividend, to improve the financial benefit of employment for unemployed people with families; the measurement and publication of performance statistics for each individual Intreo office; the implementation and roll-out of JobPath as a means of augmenting the resources available to provide services to unemployed jobseekers; and the commissioning of a robust evaluation of the various Pathways initiatives to inform future policy direction.

In addition, in anticipation of continued employment growth and reductions in unemployment, Pathways 2015 commits to the development and evaluation of options to extend the range of activation services available to people who, although not in employment, are not on the live register.

I understand that the committee has expressed an interest in receiving additional information on JobPath and accordingly my colleague, Mr. John McKeon, will present this subject.

Mr. John McKeon

The State provides services to unemployed jobseekers using a mix of direct provision by staff employed in its own Departments and agencies and via contracted provision under commercial contracts with local development companies, LDCs, and other providers, including, for example, providers of MOMENTUM services. In general, and with specific reference to services provided by the Department of Social Protection, staff directly employed by the Department provide services to short-term unemployed and "job ready" jobseekers, whereas services to support long-term unemployed jobseekers and jobseekers with significant barriers to employment are provided by third parties under contract.

It has been clear for some time that the combination of the Department’s direct and contracted resource capacity is insufficient to provide a high level of service to all of the people currently on the live register. In this regard, it is estimated that a total resource capacity of approximately 1,800 case workers is required to provide a systematic case management service to all of the jobseekers on the live register. This compares with the combined capacity of our contracted and our directly provided service in 2012 which consisted of approximately 450 case workers. As part of the process of rolling out Pathways reforms, the Department realised efficiency gains that enabled it to increase capacity by deploying a further 300 staff on employment service activities and to maximise client referrals under the existing contract arrangements with other providers. The purpose of JobPath is to further augment our capacity in a cost-effective manner to cope with a cyclical but diminishing peak in caseload. Towards this end, JobPath is a time limited payment by results contract model under which the cost to the Exchequer is directly linked to employment outcomes and welfare savings.

It will operate alongside and complement our existing in-house and contracted resources; it will not substitute for, or displace, any existing capacity.

Internationally, contracted models similar to JobPath were first developed in the 1980s and are now commonplace in many OECD countries. Accordingly, the Department drew on international experience in developing JobPath. In addition, the Department commissioned and took advice from experts who advised and prepared reports for the EU, the OECD, the UK Government, the UK House of Parliament select committees, the National Audit Office in the UK, the Northern Ireland Executive and the Trade Union Council, TUC, in the UK. The Department also took informal advice and input from the former Director General of Employment Policy and Services in the OECD, canvassed the opinion of Irish labour market experts in the NESC, the ESRI, the Geary Institute and the National University of Ireland in Maynooth and took input from members of the Labour Market Council. Finally, the Department held a number of public briefing events which involved participants from advocacy groups, local development companies and trade unions among others and sought feedback from participants.

Taking account of the advice and feedback received and our own analysis of the performance, benefits and risks associated with contracting models in other countries, we designed JobPath over the period 2012 to 2013. The key elements of the design are that JobPath will support people who are long-term unemployed and those newly unemployed people who are profiled as being most distant from the labour market; the Department of Social Protection will select all of the clients to be referred and will ensure that the clients referred will be a representative mix of all long-term unemployed clients on the live register; JobPath contractors will have no say in the selection of clients; the period of engagement on the programme for any individual client will be up to 52 weeks, compared to 104 weeks in Great Britain; and client referrals will be made for a period of four years with a further two year workout period giving a maximum contract duration of six years.

On average, it is expected that some 100,000 jobseekers per annum will be referred to JobPath over the four year referral period. Unlike in Great Britain, jobseekers can be referred to, and will have access to, further education and training opportunities while on JobPath and every participant on the programme is guaranteed a baseline level of service – a service guarantee. The service guarantee will ensure that all participants receive support to develop a personal progression plan, regular one-to-one and face-to-face meetings with personal advisers at a frequency of at least once per month, assistance with CV and job interview preparation, job search assistance, and in work support. Providers have flexibility in addressing whatever barriers a jobseeker may have in securing employment, for example, child care support, travel expenses, training on basic literacy skills, computer skills and other work specific skills.

JobPath is a “payment by results” model. An initial fee will be paid on the production of a personal progression plan for each client; subsequent "sustainment" payments, which will make up about 90% of the total fees for any individual client, will only be made where a person completes 13, 26, 39 and 52 weeks of sustained employment. The fees paid to contractors are tiered based on unemployment durations such that contractors are incentivised to provide an equal level of service to all clients rather than focus their attentions on the clients who are easier to place. In addition, contractors will be required, under contract, to commit to a specific level of progression to employment across all clients. Fees paid to contractors are also subject to a number of controls, including retention fees and automatic price discounts. Retention fees, which reduce the level of payments to contractors, apply if contractors fail to meet contractual performance commitments and-or if they do not deliver a satisfactory level of customer service as measured by the Department in independent customer surveys. Price discounts will be applied automatically if employment growth in the economy exceeds those levels set out in A Strategy for Growth medium-term economic strategy 2014 -2020, published in 2013.

A request for tenders, setting out these conditions and requirements, was issued in December of last year and following a detailed evaluation of tenders received two preferred bidders have been selected and contracts are currently being finalised. The two preferred bidders are Turas Nua Ltd. and Seetec Business Technology Company Ltd. Turas Nua is a new business and is a joint venture between FRS Recruitment, a large Irish co-operative recruitment company based in Roscrea, and Working Links, an established, UK based, non-profit provider of employment services to long-term unemployed people. Seetec Business Technology is a private company delivering a wide range of employability and skills programmes across both urban and rural areas of England. Turas Nua Limited will operate in the southern half of the country, including towns and cities such as Cork, Limerick and Waterford.

Seetec will operate in the northern half of the country, including in towns and cities such as Dublin, Galway, Sligo and Dundalk. Between them the two preferred bidders envisage providing services from approximately 100 outlets, employing approximately 1,000 staff around the country. The preferred bidders have accepted all the conditions and requirements and have proposed to exceed our service and performance requirements. If successful, they will provide service from 100 outlines and employ 1,000 staff. Most importantly, they will help approximately 89,000 more long-term unemployed people move into employment than would be expected in the absence of JobPath.

The total projected cost to the State, assuming progression to employment performance commitments are met, is approximately €338 million over a six year period. These costs will be matched by gross welfare savings of approximately €505 million over the course of the contract.

It is important to note that JobPath is not replacing any existing service provision, either that provided directly by staff within the Department or that provided under existing contract arrangements. JobPath does not involve the outsourcing of any existing work, nor does it require departmental staff to transfer to external providers or to cease existing work. Its purpose is to complement and augment our core capacity and to enable the Department to adapt the total level of resourcing in a flexible manner in line with variations in demand for employment services. The use of contracting in such circumstances is provided for under Towards 2016 and the Croke Park and Haddington Road agreements, as confirmed by the findings of the independent arbitration board established under these arrangements.

It is also important to note that JobPath will not have any negative impact on the existing local employment services and job clubs. The Department intends to continue its contractual arrangements with the local employment service and job club providers following the introduction of JobPath. In fact, JobPath offers an opportunity for these providers to expand their services and increase their revenues as they are free to participate as subcontractors in JobPath. Many of the providers have already indicated their intention to do so.

Committee members may be familiar with criticisms of the model of contracting that has evolved in Great Britain. It should be noted that the JobPath contract model differs significantly from the Great Britain model and the Department is satisfied, based on the inputs and advice received, that the JobPath design addresses the perceived deficiencies of the Great Britain model, in particular with regard to issues such as "cream skimming" and "parking", in other words where hard-to-place jobseekers are "parked" and contractors focus their efforts on easy-to-place clients, and also with regard to customer service obligations, employment sustainability and profiteering.

A 14-day standstill period was required under EU procurement rules to provide under-bidders with an opportunity to appeal the outcome of the procurement process; this expired on 12 October. The Department will now proceed to finalise contracts with the preferred bidders. Subject to the successful conclusion of contracts, it is expected that JobPath will go live in mid-2015.

Ms Anne Vaughan

I hope Mr. John McKeon and I have given the committee a flavour of the progress made to date and the new initiatives contained in the Pathways document. In previous periods of economic recovery it took a long time for the benefits of economic growth to trickle down to long-term and young unemployed people. The intention in Pathways is to make sure that this time economic recovery benefits all of our people earlier. In particular, it will bring a sharper focus on actions to help tackle long-term and youth joblessness. The roll of JobPath in 2015 will be a cornerstone of this strategy, an initiative that confirms the Department's commitment to fresh and innovative approaches to the delivery of employment services.

We are very happy to take any questions and provide the committee with any additional information that it may require.

I will take questions from members starting with Deputy Ó Snodaigh.

I will return to the JobPath scheme in respect of which I have a number of questions. One of the key planks of the Pathways to Work strategy has been the roll-out of the Intreo offices, which I welcome. It is a good initiative. I have attended one, if not two, of the openings. It is a logical approach and one that should have been taken in dole offices for many years but regrettably it was not.

Mr. McKeon announced another 14 Intreo offices are to open this year. How many more such Intreo offices have not been redesigned and the necessary staff upgraded to provide the services required in such an office? These services include some of the measures covered in the JobPath document, namely, group engagement, a case management approach and the proper focusing of jobseekers towards the services they need, be it education, if required, or jobs that are available.

Turning to a different issue, people will be aware of my criticism of JobBridge so I am not going to go into that in detail because there is a full committee here. However, I have problems with it, as do others. This morning Subway advertised for a sandwich artist under the JobBridge programme. Whether you agree or disagree with the JobBridge programme, these advertisements undermine and demean those who are working. There is no such thing as a sandwich artist. Someone putting a sandwich together in Subway will require a day or two of training - maybe a week. It does not take six months. This shows the need for a proper internship programme. This is free labour for companies and that is how they are using it in many instances. How can that be prevented?

In terms of the JobPath document itself, I have major concerns about this and I have raised them before. In the document, it states it is expected that some 100 jobseekers per annum will be referred to this privatised system of ensuring that jobseekers look for work. This is despite the fact that the Intreo office and the Department itself have been upgrading and retraining staff to ensure they can deliver virtually the exact same system. The JobPath programme is mainly aimed at the long-term unemployed. There was a problem there. In the introduction, it is stated that the number of long-term unemployed people had fallen to 200,000 in 2012 and is currently 150,000. If the trend continues - hopefully it will continue and jobs are being created - the need for the JobPath programme starts to disappear. There is within the Department at this stage - according to its own figures - 750 people who are capable of doing the case-working and so forth. Some 1,800 people were apparently needed in 2012. We might end up with a situation similar to Dublin City Council's contract concerning the incinerator. We might end up with the Department having to undermine its own service to provide the JobPath programme and the companies that will be running it with people who would be better served by Department officials cost-free, as these officials are already being paid.

My final question concerns cream-skimming and parking and so forth. When the British were preparing their equivalent to the JobPath programme, the exact same commitments were given to Westminster. Major fraud has been exposed in Britain. Reviews there have confirmed that despite representations that these practices could not and would not happen, they have happened. This criticism exists. How can we be sure that the same level of fraud - fabricating jobs that did not exist and getting money for placing people in employment or education which never happened - does not occur here? Also, most of the placements in Britain were for low paid and non-sustainable work. I welcome the fact that this programme has staged payments. I have severe concerns about the trend towards the privatisation of service rather than continuing the role of Intreo.

We have heard that a further 60 Intreo offices are being rolled out in the next couple of months. Can we get a list of those offices and when they will be opening? Can staffing levels and such information also be included?

We are waiting for those offices to be opened in several areas where offices were closed because it is quite difficult for people to access services.

I am not in favour of outsourcing the JobBridge type of work to private companies. The witnesses say that over six years it would cost €338 million and they hope to save €505 million. Is that correlated with the fact that every person employed will be off the register and no longer receiving jobseeker’s allowance? What sort of mechanism will the Department put in place to ensure this sort of skimming does not happen? The witnesses said there will be checks. How transparent will they be? If they give more than 100 people to these companies and 20 are not placed through job activation, how will we know why those people are not being given job placements?

According to a recent report, Ireland has the third highest number of part-time workers or workers seeking extra hours among OECD countries. America is first. What strategy is the Department considering to provide full-time jobs, for five days or 38 or 40 hours a week?

I welcome the Department’s good initiatives, such as the roll-out of the Intreo offices which have been very successful, the 3,000 new JobsPlus places and the family dividend, which the Minister assured me will not interfere with the family income supplement.

Is it too early to know how many people on the JobsPlus scheme are kept on in permanent employment? We need to keep an eye on that to ensure employers do not avail of JobsPlus and then let the people go. I am concerned about part-time workers who receive unemployment assistance, sign off to work part-time and then sign on again. It is a nightmare to get back into the system. The witnesses will tell me this should not happen in the Intreo offices but it is happening. These people are asked for all their documents when they sign on again.

The family income supplement for people trying to get back to work cannot be changed for 12 months, regardless of whether their circumstances change. That is positive but I know someone who is expecting twins and has one child already but will not apply for the family income supplement until the twins are born because it cannot be increased if an extra child is born into the family within the 12 months. It should be possible for the family to put that into the application form.

I have looked through this document and have not seen one reference to people with disabilities. The Disability Federation of Ireland came before this committee a couple of weeks ago. It told us that people with disabilities have problems accessing these schemes and courses. They are not even mentioned in this document. I would like the witnesses’ comments on that and to hear what the Department will do for people with disabilities. Just because one has a disability does not mean one cannot work. These schemes should be open and accessible to people with disabilities, just as they are to those without disabilities.

There are 6,500 places on the MOMENTUM programme, one third for under 25 year olds. Were those places taken up? Were there enough places or do we need more?

The target for the JobPath programme was to move 75,000 people out of long-term unemployment and into work by the end of 2015. Are we on target? Where are we with that? The officials also mentioned that child care support is provided to people under JobPath. Could they elaborate on that? What kind of support is given to people for child care?

Like everyone, I welcome the drop in the percentage of people on the live register. Have we any figures that indicate the percentage of people who went into work and the percentage who emigrated?

I have a few questions. I would like to pick up on what Deputy Joan Collins said about Intreo offices. Could I have an outline of where these Intreo offices are geographically located throughout the country? Where will the new offices that were mentioned by Deputy Ó Snodaigh be located? How many of them have been upgraded? How many of them need to be upgraded? I am looking for information on the geography of that.

One of the officials spoke about the measurement and publication of performance statistics within the Intreo offices. They have been up and running since 2011 or 2012. There must be some kind of measurement and publication. We are lacking a certain measurement and publication of statistics. We need to know what is working and what is not working.

I would like to know how much progress has been made with the Gateway programme. Where has that moved? Has definable progress been made on it? I have similar questions about the Youth Guarantee and internships. The lack of imagination with regard to internships is a particular bugbear of mine. Quite rightly, there are many references throughout the document to one-to-one communication, personal advisers, literacy and numeracy, education and the development of curricula vitae. When all that is done, the big problem is finding actual jobs for that development. I do not think enough attention is paid to the Gateway programme and internships.

Every week, the clerk to the joint committee, Tom Sheridan, asks some fine questions about much of the information that comes in. He has raised questions about schemes like JobsPlus, Tús, Gateway, JobBridge and MOMENTUM. What are the demands for the various programmes? I do not know which one is working and which one is not working, or which one is more effective and which one is less effective. Is there one programme with which more progress needs to be made? Is there one programme from which we need to learn? I would like the officials to speak about the effectiveness of these programmes. We are not getting any concrete information. I welcome the extraordinary pathway the Department has created. It has been an extraordinary development for the long-term unemployed and those furthest from the live register. I say that with no churlishness. I want to find a bit more effectiveness. I am looking for statistics about outcomes. How does the Department intend to move forward? The officials might be able to answer some of my generalised questions.

I welcome the officials and thank them for the presentation. I welcome the roll-out of the Intreo offices and the slow but steady reduction in our unemployment rates. We are definitely going in a very positive direction. I would like to hear the views of officials on whether case officers should be able to impose reduced welfare payments on those who fail to engage with the process. Would it be possible for them to give us some targets and timelines with regard to where the Youth Guarantee is going? That would give us a clearer picture of the vision ahead. The National Economic and Social Council has found that the longer someone is on the live register, the more disincentivised they are go back into employment. We can all agree with that. Do the officials think it would be a good idea to link jobseeker's benefit to the unemployment rate, for example by giving extra supports at the beginning and providing in some cases for decreases in those supports the longer the unemployment spell continues? I would like to hear the witnesses' views on that.

Ms Anne Vaughan

I thank the members. In case they think I am avoiding questions, I will go through as many as I can deal with, Mr. McKeon will look after JobPath and Mr. Corcoran will look after questions relating to the Youth Guarantee and employment-unemployment trends. If we have not reached any of the questions, members can come back to us. I will reply in the order questions were asked and I hope I will not repeat myself.

I thank members for their comments about our Intreo service. Intreo is a catch-all name for the entire revised service to deliver payments, supports and services. It is a service but the setting up of the Intreo offices involves three aspects, the first of which is the physical works in an office. Ideally, where we can, we do an office over one site, but we have had to use two sites in some locations. One hopes they are not far from each other. Second, there is an IT infrastructure and then there is the issue of the amalgamation of staff and the kitting out of offices. It is quite logistical. I ask people to bear with us while we do all the offices.

We have more than 60 offices and we still have 16 to do. We hope to complete them in the coming months. We will not have them all done by the end of the year because it is not physically possible. It may sound a little odd but I cannot say which ones will and will not be done. It is a joint effort between us and the Office of Public Works and sometimes when we think we are almost there and we are ready to go, something happens. It could be something to do with planning, the bank or a landlord. I do not want to say for definite, therefore, that any office that has not been done yet will be done. They will be big achievements when we land them. For example, we hope to have completed Cork by the end of the year. Our largest office is in Cork and we are splitting that in two, north and south of the River Lee. That will give us two Intreo centres and it is hoped that will happen before the end of the year. The position is similar in Galway. It may trip over into January. They will be two big achievements. I can supply the list of what is done and what is to come. People will be aware of the offices that have been done. The OPW and I are reasonably confident we will have them all done and dusted bar one or two by the end of the first quarter next year. I emphasise that services are being delivered, although not in the Intreo setting. The group engagements and the one-on-ones and other services are being provided. We also have plans in train to deliver the same Intreo service in as many of our branch offices as we can, and that is important for members in more rural areas where we deliver a contract service through these offices.

I take Deputy Ó Snodaigh's point regarding JobBridge and we will investigate it. We are trying in all cases to ensure internships that are advertised meet the strict criteria we have set down. We follow up with inspections. We have done approximately 8,000 inspections but we will investigate. Mr. McKeon can say a little more about what we did in a particular area related to cleaning that came to our attention recently.

If we get it wrong in certain areas, we get it wrong and we apologise. However, as a whole, the JobBridge initiative is highly successful and very useful to people at all levels of educational attainment. We may have to agree to differ on some of this but we certainly will take up the matter the Deputy has brought to our attention. Deputy Joan Collins asked me about Intreo and I believe I have answered that. Yes, the staffing levels will be commensurate with what is required. They are tight in certain areas where we perhaps find it more difficult to get staff purely because of geography.

To be clear on this point, Senator Moloney of course is right that the new back-to-work family dividend the Tánaiste has announced will not be taken into account in the calculation of family income supplement, FIS. I confirm the Senator's observation is correct. Its purpose is to increase the incentive to people with families to take up employment. While I must talk to the Senator separately in this regard, to my knowledge it is not difficult to re-sign. The Senator must tell me which Intreo office she considers to be difficult. She can do that off-line with me and I will follow that up. It used to be the case but is no longer. I have come before this joint committee numerous times and have assured members that we have sorted that out. However, if we have not done so in a particular area, the Senator might talk to me afterwards about it. I thank her.

Was the Senator's issue with FIS to do with the application form or that one cannot add on a child?

It was that one cannot add on a child.

Ms Anne Vaughan

Okay. While that was not my understanding, I will get-----

Once one applies for FIS, it is set for 12 months.

Ms Anne Vaughan

Yes.

Even if one's circumstances change in between, one cannot.

Ms Anne Vaughan

Normally, I would agree with that. The Senator should let me clarify this issue. I will check it.

That is fine. Ms Vaughan can get back to me.

Ms Anne Vaughan

All right.

On people with disabilities, the opening statement was lengthy and our main focus was on JobPath, because that is what we understood members' interest to be. Members will see in the Pathways to Work document that while our immediate focus at present is on people who are long-term unemployed on the live register, there certainly are references to people who are not on the register. Again, people with disabilities should be able to access employability services locally and this is something on which one of my departmental colleagues is very strong. We have sent out instructions or circulars to our offices and my understanding was that it was fine. In fact, when I attended an Intreo opening, in Wexford as it happened, the person involved there was very satisfied. I will have a look at any issues but I would not disagree at all with what the Senator was saying. Moreover, she will find references to other groups of people in the Pathways to Work document. The latest tranche of the MOMENTUM programme was launched recently and it again comprises 6,000 places.

In so far as the Senator was asking me about the various targets and the target of 75,000-----

Before Ms Vaughan moves away from the MOMENTUM programme, were all the places taken up and were there sufficient places?

Ms Anne Vaughan

Last year, all the places were taken up. However, we are working with our colleagues in SOLAS and in the education and training boards, ETBs.

There is a review of MOMENTUM about which my colleagues might wish to speak, and we learned from the review. We had a meeting recently with my colleagues in SOLAS to see how we will proceed for this year's MOMENTUM. The MOMENTUM training courses are focused on what is available in the labour market and what employers want. Of those courses we also try to determine what suits best people who are long-term unemployed. It is a two-way process. My understanding is that it is working reasonably well on the ground, but some courses are about to start shortly. I will give the Senator a list of the location of the offices.

The Senator asked about performance data. There is a reference to that in Pathways to Work. Our main performance data, which is available and which we provide in parliamentary questions, is to do with pending rates in terms of how long it takes for somebody across all our payment schemes to receive payment. Obviously, that should be as short a time as possible. One of the areas Intreo in particular has delivered on is paying people more quickly and having a quicker assessment process. The basic SWA weekly payments that used to be administered by the community welfare service when it was part of the Health Service Executive have just dropped. The Department has integrated and we pay people within a week, which means there are usually some reasons to go to the community welfare side of the house. That is an obvious statistic in terms of the way Intreo has improved the situation and the amalgamation of the staff.

There is more to do in that regard, and that is being signalled in Pathways to Work. When I am before the committee I always speak about the Department having three functions in the payments space, namely, delivery of payments, activation, which is what Pathways is all about, and making sure we pay the right people, which would be something on the control side. We have set out macro-metrics in Pathways to Work. We will now drop those into the individual Intreo offices and decide on that. We have to develop them but it will be in the area of progression to employment. That is the obvious metric. Most people would agree that the fewer metrics for people to understand, the better, and that is what we will be aiming for.

Gateway has a target of 3,000 places across all of the local authorities. I will have to check the figure but we will certainly have 1,000 or more by the end of the year. As with many arrangements that are brought in, there are teething problems. This is a scheme operated between ourselves in the Department of Social Protection and the local authorities. There was an effort on both sides to get it to work on the ground. Some local authorities have met or are about to meet their targets. Others are well behind but are now catching up. There were various issues to be addressed. Some of the city authorities had issues that some of the other authorities did not have. It was a slow burner but it is getting there. The Local Government Management Agency, LGMA, is confident that the 3,000 places will be got as a steady State position next year. It will not be this year.

I take the Senator's point that we must know in the case of the individual schemes which is more effective but we must also be clear about the reason we set up schemes, the target groups for them and what would signify they are working well. The Tánaiste would be clear and strong on the various objectives and purposes of, say, community employment schemes. Certain schemes would have a strong professional element and training element and other schemes have a social services dimension and that may be all they can do. We must be clear on this. I take that point on board. We have done reviews and more reviews are in train. I would not disagree with any of what was said in that respect.

Senator Naughton asked about case officers. I am not sure if she was asking specifically about people who are case officers or officers in general. To be clear about penalty rates or where payment is suspended for a period, the whole purpose of having penalties is not to impose them, rather it is to make people engage. A success would be the imposition of fewer penalties because people would be engaging. There may be some discussion as to whether a case officer dealing with a person and advising him or her on activation training, jobs and so on would also have the power to impose a penalty. I am not sure if that is the point the Senator is getting at.

Yes, that was my question.

Ms Anne Vaughan

I personally would not have a problem with that, although I am aware that perhaps not all of those in my organisation would agree with me. It is a little like a good cop, bad cop scenario. I believe the more an officer can do for the person for whom he or she is providing a service in that whole end-to-end scenario, the better, and the imposing of a penalty would be a last resort.

I would agree with that, that the person should be encouraged to engage but in cases where there is no success after several attempts would a penalty be imposed and who would have the power to impose one?

Ms Anne Vaughan

The deciding officer.

Would the case officer do that in conjunction with the deciding officer to have a team approach?

Ms Anne Vaughan

I want to be clear on this, this is all covered under social welfare law and under natural justice and it is not as if suddenly it would come as a surprise that a penalty rate would be imposed. A warning is given, followed by another warning, a letter is issued and all of that. We might find in another arena that somebody might be accusing us of being a little soft in this space. It is all about trying to assist people to be job-ready or course-ready and we all know, and the Senator knows better than I do, that there are some people who are well behind in that respect and need a lot of hand-holding.

They may need support.

Ms Anne Vaughan

Mr. John McKeon may say a little about that. Some of what we learned from talking to the potential JobPath providers is how all that dynamic works. The longer somebody is unemployed the more difficult it is to get a structure back into his or her life.

Before I pass over to Ms John McKeon, the Senator made a suggestion related to a policy area - on which I will comment but I assure the Chairman I will go no further than that - as to whether it would be better to have a higher unemployment payment which, as time passes would be reduced. The troika and others have spoken to us about this. We believe that the arrangements we have in place, taking account of replacement ratios and our supports, are adequate. It is a policy issue but it is not something that is new to us or that we would not have debated.

Mr. John McKeon

We would not support, or want to see, firms abusing JobBridge. We take it seriously. We have carried out 8,000 inspections and have blacklisted 44 firms we believed were not honouring or respecting the terms and conditions of the scheme. It is important to remember where JobBridge came from five years ago. At that time there were many criticisms of the Department and many calls to address the situation in which someone who was unemployed and was offered work experience could not take up that offer without losing entitlement to jobseeker’s payment. Even when there was a work placement programme, which had a limited range, if those people took up a place on that scheme they received no contribution towards the cost of going to work. The purpose of JobBridge was to remove the possibility that someone who was unemployed and received a legitimate work experience opportunity was unable to take it up. It paid a little more in order that they could cover the expense of going to work. It has been very successful. Feedback through our research from our case officers, interns and employers is overwhelmingly positive, albeit some cases are highlighted. It is important when talking about something like a sandwich assistant, and I am not commenting on that in particular, or a cleaner-----

A sandwich artist.

Mr. John McKeon

People often use the word "intern" and have a preconceived idea that it is a route into employment for professional graduates and the first step on the career ladder to becoming a professional. For people who are long-term unemployed and cannot even get an interview, an internship or work experience is a better term for this opportunity. Although a job might not be considered to be a traditional internship, it is just as valuable a way of getting back to work. Our case officers tell me they can use it very successfully to persuade employers to give a person a chance whom they would not have let through the door for an interview. If they ask employers to take these people on JobBridge, give them a chance, with the promise that they will work out, inevitably they do. The employers might not have given those individuals the benefit of an interview. We need to be careful not to have inverted snobbery about the type of job that is worthy of an internship. I qualify that by saying there are obvious examples, and the committee members have mentioned them, where we need to be very careful.

In developing the scheme, there have been calls on the Department to take a much more aggressive approach to reviewing advertisements and host organisations putting jobs up on the system. We have to get the balance right between making it easy for jobseekers and employers to use the scheme and preventing abuse. We have tried, pretty much successfully, to have a compliance and inspection regime rather than a verification at point of order regime. It is entirely voluntary. No jobseeker has to take up an internship. We are all aware of the case of 17 or 18 schools that put up jobs on the system which we took down as soon as they were brought to our attention. We are now working with the Department of Education and Skills to put in place a set of guidelines for schools telling them how to behave in future. We expect to finalise that in the next week or two.

We still need JobPath, even though employment performance is improving and unemployment numbers are falling. At the moment there are between 540 and 550 people on our live register for every case worker in the Department. That is notwithstanding the reduction in unemployment and the increase in the number of case workers. The upper limit recommended by the OECD is 200:1. We still have a long way to go before we have sufficient resources to deal with what is still a peak, albeit a declining one, in unemployment. We need the capacity. We have built in several protections into the scheme in the event that this employment situation continues. We have not committed in our tender and will not commit in our contract to refer the estimated 100,000.

We will have to give a commitment, and what we said is 60%. We can vary that by location and by jobseeker type, so we are only committing to sending 60% of what we think we will actually need. That gives us some scope. We also built in price discounts. If the economy improves and the contractors find it easier to get people into work, we can reduce our prices by up to 16% to take account of that fact. We have built in protections against that. The other point to bear in mind is that when we talk about people on the live register, there is a whole cohort of people to whom we should start extending our services as the situation improves. People with disabilities have been mentioned and there are qualified adults who are not counted on the live register and so on. Every bit of capacity we can get, we will use.

With regard to the issues of cream-skimming and parking, it is correct that there have been a lot of criticisms of the British model. I think they have had five or six different versions since the new deal in the 1990s and with each version there have been criticism and difficulties. They thought they had got it right with their last version, but they had not quite done so. They built in a tiered payment structure, which we copied. They thought that would work because if providers were paid more money for dealing with somebody who was really distant from the labour market, they would not just park them. They would spend as much time and effort on them as they spent on others. We have copied that but have actually gone beyond it by specifying a service guarantee that is not a feature of the UK model. In the UK they call it a "black box" where a jobseeker is sent to a contractor and, again, not to put too fine a point on it, to a certain extent the state says it does not care what the contractor does with him or her. The contractor has to provide services to the jobseeker but can pick whatever services it wants to provide and whatever clients it wants and can do things its own way. The state then comes back in two years' time and hopefully the jobseeker will no longer be unemployed. That provided flexibility for providers to pick and choose who they would deal with. We have specified a minimum guarantee that every person we refer has to get at least a minimum of a personal progression plan, some basic training in CV writing, job searches and interview techniques and a face-to-face meeting with an employment adviser at least once a month. The contractors cannot just park somebody, and if they do not fulfil the minimum requirements, they do not get paid. That is very clear in our tender. We have built in those protections.

The duration of our referral period is one year, while in the UK it is two years. That is really creating scope in the UK for people, perhaps almost unconsciously, to park individuals and say, "I will get back to them in a couple of months, I have two years to deal with them". In Ireland, the contractors have to deal with the people we refer to them within a year. They cannot get away from that. We have also built in customer satisfaction surveys. The contractors have to hit minimum levels of customer satisfaction across all client groups or they do not get paid. They have a minimum performance level. They do not get paid on an individual client basis unless they get that client a job, and unless they hit a minimum performance level which we have set, we will hold back payments across all clients. We will not hold back 100% of the payment, but we will hold back a good proportion of it. These are all things that will help address that issue.

On the issue of low-paid work and more precarious employment, which some of the contractors in the UK have been accused of promoting, under the UK Department of Work and Pensions contract, employment is defined as 16 hours of work per week. The sustainment payment is paid every four weeks. We have defined work as 30 hours' work per week, and the sustainment payment is made every 13 weeks, so the contractors have to get the jobseeker 30 hours of work a week for 13 weeks' sustainment before they get a payment. In the UK, they could get the client 16 hours of work for four weeks and get a payment. We have made those changes and we are also encouraging providers to send people on training programmes. We have said we will stop the clock while somebody is on a training programme, so we will extend the referral period by the period of the training programme, up to a maximum of 26 weeks. In the UK, there was no training allowed. Under the work programme in the UK, contractors are not allowed send jobseekers to training.

There was a question about the saving mechanism and how we can be sure that the contractor has got somebody into work and that we are paying them. That was a problem in the UK. We will have a number of checks. The first is that the person for whom the contractor is claiming a job placement is no longer in receipt of a jobseeker's payment or any other welfare payment, for example, illness benefit or disability. However, we will also confirm through a commencement of employment notice and P35 returns that we get from the Revenue Commissioners that people are actually in work. We will build in those checks.

Senator Moloney asked how many people are kept on under the JobsPlus scheme. We currently have 3,000 people on the scheme. It is a bit early to go back and look over it. It would really need to have been in operation for at least a year.

I appreciate that.

Mr. John McKeon

I would argue that two years of operation would be needed to do anything that makes sense. The JobsPlus subsidy is paid on a monthly basis as long as people are in employment. Employers only get the payment for as long as someone is in employment. It is something of an inbuilt control. I hope that deals with the issue.

Ms Vaughan answered the question that was asked about people with disabilities. I would like to make two further points in this regard, the first of which relates to Pathways to Work. I have mentioned the Department's resource and capacity difficulties. We have a group of people - jobseekers getting jobseeker's payments - on whom we impose the condition that they must be genuinely available for and seeking work. We have inspectors who inspect that. They have to come in and sign. They have to swear to it every four weeks. I think our first obligation has to be to those workers on whom we impose this condition. We must help them to meet that conditionality. People on disability and illness payments, etc., are not obliged to look for work. In fact, they will probably resist very strongly any such obligation. That is not to say we should not support them. Notwithstanding what I have said, and Mr. Corcoran might want to comment further on the matter, I would argue that the supports given to people with disabilities exceed the supports given to jobseekers.

I appreciate that, but when representatives of the Disability Federation of Ireland attended a committee meeting a couple of weeks ago, they said that people with disabilities were having difficulty accessing these schemes. That is why I raised the issue. I still think we have to look at equality. We cannot focus in the first place on our obligations to jobseekers. Anyone who wants to work should be allowed to work and to access these schemes regardless of his or her ability or disability.

Mr. John McKeon

Absolutely. The Department has introduced the partial capacity benefit scheme and provided for very generous income disregards for people on disability payments to enable them to work while retaining their payments. We will follow up on the issue of access to schemes with the disability council. I emphasise that the range of supports available to people with disabilities is more generous than the range of supports available to jobseekers. Mr. Corcoran might want to comment on that.

Senator Moloney also asked about the 6,500 places that are available under the MOMENTUM programme. Ms Vaughan has mentioned that the second phase of the programme is just starting. I would be pretty confident that the 6,500 places will be filled. The Senator also referred to the target of moving 75,000 people out of long-term unemployment. The current number is approximately 56,000. I would be very confident that we will achieve the 75,000 target by the end of next year.

I asked about the provision of child care support under the same scheme. Could Mr. McKeon elaborate on that?

Mr. John McKeon

Is the Senator referring to JobPath?

Mr. John McKeon

This falls into the discretionary category. We have set the minimum standards and the minimum service we expect to apply. We have asked bidders to set out the kinds of supports they would offer in excess of that. Nearly all of the bidders, and certainly the two preferred bidders, have offered to give people support with child care, work expenses and clothing expenses related to work to try to help them get back into work. They will do that on a discretionary basis as they see fit. It will be entirely within their gift. That relates to JobPath. We support people separately. The Department of Children and Youth Affairs has introduced a pilot scheme to subsidise child care for people going back to work. I do not have the up-to-date information on that scheme, but it is available.

Senator O'Donnell asked about measurement and publication. We publish the key metrics on a quarterly basis. They are available on our website. I can show the committee a document that we published in hard copy in March. We will publish another one before the end of the year. It will go through the 50 discrete actions and say where we are with each of them. Every quarter, we publish on our website figures setting out the performance in terms of returns to work, progressions to employment, exit rates, interviews held and training referrals, etc. The figures for the second quarter will be published shortly. The reason for the delay is that we have to wait for the CSO to produce the quarterly national household survey report. The report for the end of the second quarter was produced a few weeks ago. We will publish the figures in question pretty soon.

I accept that. I was talking about effectiveness, about the improvement or lack of improvement, and about what is working and what is not working with programmes like JobsPlus, Tús, Gateway, JobBridge and MOMENTUM and with apprenticeship schemes.

I have no sense of which one is working, which one has been learned from, which one needs to be learned from, which one could be added to and which one is not working. Maybe it is somewhere in the document and I cannot find it.

We have 27 local authorities and we have only 1,000 jobs. I would like to see where those 1,000 jobs are located. The Secretary General said they were looking to fill 3,000 places. That is only asking the local authorities to fill 150 jobs each. Which local authority is not stepping up to the mark? Which local authority is? Which local authority is not trying to be creative or advanced in creating jobs? I am not getting any sense of what is working, what is effective, what is not effective or what needs to be improved.

Psychometrics is one thing. I am talking about the actual jobs that people have got and are staying in. Which ones are really useful, working, effective, powerful and improved and which ones are not? It is a general question but I am not getting answers even to those.

It is extraordinary that some of the local authorities did not properly respond to the Gateway scheme. Some of them just ignored it. I would like to know which ones have not responded, which ones have half responded and which ones have fully responded. Maybe it is not for today, but I would like some statistics on that - real statistics and not psychometrics.

Do you mean an evaluation of different schemes?

Yes. We are two years in the making here.

Mr. John McKeon

Mr. Corcoran is more eloquent on this than I am because he has been looking at this for many years but the evaluation of effectiveness is hugely complicated. It is necessary to isolate the impact of one initiative from all other initiatives and everything else that might have been going on in an individual's life that might have impacted on the progression to employment or otherwise. Having said that, one of the actions in the Pathways to Work 2015 strategy is the set-up of a robust evaluation mechanism to try to do that, to identify which schemes work and to what extent. Often, it is easy to say which schemes do not work. However, it can be very difficult to say which ones are really working. We have done evaluations on JobBridge and that shows, for example, a 61% progression to employment rate which, standing alone, looks very good. The rate for the MOMENTUM programme is about 40% and, standing alone, that looks very good.

To be precise about it, it is necessary to set up control groups and compare in a scientific way how it compares with other people in the same location with similar skills-sets and so forth. We are working on this in the Labour Market Council. This includes the participation of Professor John Martin, who was a professor in economics in Oxford and then became head of the OECD employment services. Mr. Corcoran is involved. Philip O'Connell, a professor from UCD, is involved as is Alan Gray from Indecon and Marie Sherlock from SIPTU. These are eminent economists actively looking at how we can do this. We would hope to have some of that insightful information next year. Prima facie, JobsPlus is working with 61% of people on JobsPlus being more than two years unemployed. That is a remarkable outcome. Progression to employment rates of people who are more than two years unemployed are well below 10%. They are typically in the order of 4% to 5%. JobBridge, with a 61% progression to employment rate, is doing very well by international standards. We do need more robust evaluations. I think Ms Vaughan will speak further on the Gateway scheme.

As the JobPath programme is going through private companies, is it intended to survey the users of it? It would be very important to see what their take is on it. The use of sub-contractors by the contractors was mentioned. What does that mean? What is envisaged by that? This is a very big operation that is being given to private people. The scale of it is huge. Who are the people who will be working for these companies? What training will they have? Was that part of the tendering process?

With regard to the people who will be working for the two contractors that have successfully bid, is there any requirement that they would be living in Ireland and that there would be local people who may have worked in recruitment or training getting jobs with the companies themselves? Is anything required in terms of that?

Mr. John McKeon

On the subcontractors, we encouraged the providers to establish a supply chain of subcontractors. Effectively there will be two types of subcontractor: those to whom they subcontract some of the employment counselling and personal adviser work and those to whom they might subcontract training initiatives. Most of the local employment services and job clubs that we would deal with regularly have already indicated and signed expressions of interest to participate as subcontractors.

That would be subcontracted out to the State in that case.

Mr. John McKeon

The local development companies are all private limited companies.

Voluntary organisations.

Mr. John McKeon

If they do go down that route they will have to do it in addition. We have them fully occupied at the moment; we have increased our referrals to them by 60%, so they will have to do it in addition to their separate contractual commitment to the Department. We will be undertaking the customer surveys - that is a critical aspect - and we will be setting minimum levels of satisfaction which will have to be achieved for providers to get full payment. On the staff, all of the bidders have set out the kind of person that they want to recruit in terms of somebody who has qualifications, some experience or the aptitude and ability to operate professionally in the role. I do not want to get too much into it because they are going down that process now, starting to recruit subject to contract. Certainly in the UK - I am not saying they will do that here in Ireland - they would have recruited people with degrees in psychology or so on, fresh out of college, along with a mix of people who would be experienced in the recruitment industry, and others who have experience working in HR in companies. There has been a mix and they propose to follow the same mix.

There were some other questions relating to the labour market, emigration, disability and so on. Perhaps Mr. Corcoran would like to come in.

Mr. Terry Corcoran

A small number of questions have not been covered. Deputy Collins asked about the extent of part-time work and under-employed part-time workers and how high the levels of this have become. It is true that there was great growth in this during the recession. It has, however, been coming back down over the last year or two. Virtually all of the growth in employment in the last year was, in fact, in full-time employment, and the number of people reporting themselves as part-time under-employed, which had grown a lot, has been falling. Many people in that position show up on the live register as casual and part-time workers because they are not getting enough hours to make up their income. The number of such people rose from below 20,000 to close to 100,000 during the recession. It has fallen back towards 70,000 and is still falling. We hope that the growth in employment over the next number of years is also reflected in a continuing decline in under-employment.

Senator Moloney asked about people leaving unemployment and where they go. Exits to emigration are a very small part of all exits from our administrative statistics. About 2% of those leaving unemployment each month report themselves as signing off because they are going abroad. Over a third of those leaving are known to enter employment and there is about a third of people who just do not tell us why they are leaving. Survey work in the past has indicated that the vast bulk of them do find work. The CSO started publishing data in its annual emigration and immigration estimates on what people had been doing before they emigrated, and most emigrants are either employed or students just before they leave, rather than emigrating from unemployment.

How would Mr. Corcoran consider the foreign nationals who have been living in Ireland and then return to their own country? Are they classified as emigrating from Ireland?

Mr. Terry Corcoran

They would be counted in the emigration numbers. The CSO publishes a breakdown of those entering and leaving the country by nationality in the annual estimates. A significant element of the migration in the past number of years has been people who had been recent immigrants.

Deputy Naughton asked a number of questions about the Youth Guarantee and about timelines and targets and so on. The medium-term objective of the European recommendation is that as far as possible young people should be offered something within four months of becoming unemployed. The measure we will use for that - we have set up the data systems to capture it - is that last year about 60% of young people who entered our register remained unemployed after four months. That is the number we will be reporting on quarterly from now on and the target is to get that number down as much as possible over time.

In our implementation plan published earlier this year, we published a range of measures as general metrics for progress with the youth guarantee. There are a number of programme steps that were to be taken in the implementation plan. These include extending the current process of engaging with the unemployed and this will happen to all young people immediately rather than only to those who are most disadvantaged as is the case for older jobseekers. That process is now being put in place as we speak. A number of changes have also been made already this year to programmes such as the JobsPlus subsidy, which is available only for people who have been unemployed for more than one year, if they are over 25 years, and that has been extended to young people who have been unemployed in excess of four months. That and a number of other changes required changes to the legislation to allow us to discriminate in favour of younger people. That was done in mid-year so those programme changes are taking place now.

In the context of the Youth Guarantee and on the issue of people with disabilities, as Mr. McKeon mentioned, it is true that they are not specifically mentioned in the Youth Guarantee implementation plan. The reason is that the main innovation in the Youth Guarantee implementation plan is that young people on jobseeker's payments will be referred to a case worker very early in their unemployment spell. The protocol already is that any person presenting at an employment office who has a disability is allocated to a case worker immediately, either one of our own or through the local employment service or thorough the employability service that is specific to people with disabilities and operates in each county. Those case workers working with young people with disabilities have access to the entire range of programmes that are available to other young people under the Youth Guarantee and, as Mr. McKeon mentioned, have a number of additional supports that can be given to young people with disabilities. Specifically, there is a range of training programmes by specialist training providers that are specific to people with disabilities, delivered by SOLAS, and our people can refer young people with disabilities to those.

In addition, on top of any other recruitment subsidies that exist, there is a specific long-term recruitment subsidy for people with disabilities which does not just last for one or two years, as is the case with JobsPlus, but can continue indefinitely. The employability service itself, which has a ratio of staff to clients of the order of 1:40 as opposed to the ratio of 1:500 that Mr. McKeon mentioned elsewhere, allows for provision of mentoring while in employment once people are placed and so on.

It was in the context of the additional provisions that were being made in the Youth Guarantee implementation plan - it was not felt that specific additional provision needed to be made for this group - that these supports were not mentioned. That is not to say that some advocacy groups have not raised the question of why they were not mentioned. I think we will include a section outlining all these things in the next iteration of the plan next year. As Mr. McKeon said, if there are any actual cases of difficulty in accessing supports, we want to hear about them. We think this is a communications issue rather than fact. We speak to these groups in pre-budget and post-budget forums. We have not been hearing of specific cases. Obviously, we would act if there were such cases. I do not think I have anything else to add.

The main priority of this Government, which should also be the main priority of the Opposition, is to get people back to work. These officials have given us their time today. They have gone through things in great detail with us. In that context, it is very disappointing that just two members of the committee are still here.

Both of us are Senators.

There are three of us here.

Many of those who asked questions left the meeting before their questions were answered. I think it is disrespectful, to say the least. It should not happen.

I would like to second that. The work being done by the Government to try to get the long-term unemployed back into the workforce is a mammoth task in every way. One of the most important thrusts of any Government is to provide for a work-life balance for its people. Like Senator Moloney, I am very disappointed. Having said that, I am delighted that the tough questions - they were not easy - asked by the two female Senators who are present have been answered in detail.

There is a Deputy here as well.

I just wanted to second what Senator Moloney said.

I agree. There was a good turnout at the beginning of the meeting.

I should have mentioned that the Chairman of the committee is female too.

That is true. I was a bit worried because of the day that is in it that we might not get a great turnout. Many members of the committee were here at the beginning. I agree with the Senator that members should stay, especially if they have asked questions. It is a problem for this committee and other committees.

Perhaps we could take a leaf out of the book of the Leader of the Seanad, who does not answer questions at the conclusion of the Order of Business unless the Senator who asked the question is present to hear the answer.

That is an idea.

I thank the officials for coming in and giving us such detailed replies.

They might furnish me with the details I did not get about the demands on the different schemes. I am thinking of the Gateway programme in particular.

Ms Anne Vaughan

May I speak briefly about Gateway now that I have found my page?

Ms Anne Vaughan

As I was saying, approximately 950 people participate in the Gateway programme. Obviously, that figure will exceed 1,000 by the end of the year. I reiterate that the target is still 3,000. To be fair to the local authorities, they are all on board now. Some of them are trailblazers so that is very good. As I have said, others had particular industrial relations issues. There were different issues in different authorities. Many issues in the industrial relations space have been worked through. It took time to work them through. At the end of the year, we will take stock of where we are. Different local authorities are able to offer different types of work. Some authorities seem to be able to offer outdoor work only.

They are less imaginative.

Ms Anne Vaughan

Indeed. To be fair to the authorities, they had to work through this as well. There was a lot to work through. I do not want to give the impression that all the problems were on the authorities' side. We had to get going on our side as well. We are trying to place long-term unemployed people in the local authorities via the Gateway programme. To be fair to the local authorities, it is possible they are in recruitment mode, more than placement mode, when they are looking for people. We need to get our message across. It is possible we have too many schemes. They kind of look like each other. Tús, which was originally a slow burner, is now very good.

We can learn from that. There are no difficulties in placing people in Tús. I suspect that in three to six months' time, Gateway will be in steady state mode.

We will conclude. I thank our guests and all of the members, particularly the two Senators for their contributions.

The joint committee adjourned at 2.50 p.m. until 1 p.m. on Wednesday, 22 October 2014.
Top
Share