I welcome Mr. Paul Ginnell from the European Anti-Poverty Network Ireland and Ms Bríd O'Brien from the Irish National Organisation for the Unemployed. Before we proceed, I must read out a warning for witnesses appearing before the committee with which most will be familiar. I draw attention to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. While it is generally accepted that witnesses would have qualified privilege, the committee unfortunately cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.
National Reform Programme: Discussion.
Mr. Paul Ginnell
I believe the joint committee received our presentation.
Yes, thank you.
Mr. Paul Ginnell
On behalf of the employment working group, I thank the Chair for the opportunity to make a presentation to the committee. Our presentation is on the European Commission's comments on Ireland's second progress report on the national reform programme, which is part of the Lisbon growth in jobs strategy. This short document deals with issues of concern that the members of the employment working group believe need to be addressed to ensure Ireland's social and economic inclusion is greatly enhanced.
In its document the European Commission states: "Consultation and efforts to develop ownership of the NRP — national reform programme — at the level of central and local government and with social partners continue to be very substantial." The members of the employment working group and other NGOs remain concerned at the lack of consultation on the national reform programme process. It currently consists of one annual social partnership meeting and an opportunity to read and comment on the draft report. Last year we made a submission, but there is little overall consultation. There is little sense that any of our comments have been taken on board.
Similarly, there is no sense of equal weighting being given to economic and social policy and their interaction in Towards 2016 being carried through to the national reform programme reporting process.
The Commission also commented on "upskilling the workforce and activation and participation of groups outside the workforce". A number of policy documents including Toward 2016, the national development plan and the national action plan for social inclusion envisage an increased role for the Department of Social and Family Affairs in the activation and participation of groups outside the labour market. In the interests of integrated government and the delivery of improved services to end users, the Department of Social and Family Affairs must work closely with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment and FÁS in delivering on the targets contained in these documents.
Supporting the increased participation of the unemployed, lone parents, disabled people and others distant from the labour market in a tightening labour market will present additional challenges. To meet these challenges, the provision of good information, training and education opportunities, and real progression options will be crucial. We must address barriers from employers including discrimination and poverty traps, if people are to move successfully from welfare to work. To that end, the availability of quality jobs and, where required, adequate care supports will be essential if activation is to lead to positive outcomes for the target groups.
Within these developments, it is important that the issue of choice is acknowledged and that potential participants are not forced into poorly-paid employment with little long-term prospects of addressing their socio-economic inclusion.
The Commission highlighted in its report in particular the pre-budget outlook which provides an updated economic outlook for the medium term and states that lower output and employment in the construction sector highlight the need to find alternative sources of growth to drive the economy forward. Since the Commission commented on Ireland's second progress report, the economy has slowed significantly. A number of indicators are quite striking, for example, the official statistics produced through the mechanism of the quarterly national household survey for the fourth quarter of last year which covers the period from September to November gave a rate of 4.6% unemployment. Since then, however, the live register has risen considerably to levels not seen since 1999 and the standardised unemployment rate is now 5.5%.
Similarly the 2008 budget was drawn up on a presumption of an economic growth rate of 3%. However, the ESRI in its latest quarterly commentary is expecting a rate of 1.8% which is significantly lower. During the first quarter of 2008, redundancies are running at 21.1% higher than the same time last year. In keeping with other Western economies, domestic consumption has been seen as a major driving force in economic growth yet recent indicators show a slowdown in this activity as well. Rising inflation, particularly in basic commodities, is having a disproportionate impact on poorer households, effectively negating the recent social welfare increases.
Ms Bríd O'Brien, from the Irish National Organisation for the Unemployed will continue the presentation.
Ms Bríd O’Brien
The European Council highlighted the need to focus on accelerating progress in increasing labour market participation, including by establishing a comprehensive child care infrastructure, further developing the policy framework for the labour market and social integration of migrants, and placing particular emphasis on support to older and low-skilled workers.
In paragraph 19, the Commission's expectation of the proposed community child care scheme is more positive than that of many NGOs. Though the targeting of resources are welcome, many of us are concerned the new scheme will create a new barrier to moving from welfare to work.
Labour market participation and progression is probably the most essential element in the process of enabling the successful integration of migrant workers. This will require that we focus on addressing workplace exploitation, particularly in areas that have less regulation, for example, the private home, agrifood, hospitality and cleaning sectors, in which a significant number of migrant workers are employed. To enable mobility and progression pathways for migrant workers within the workforce, we need to combat both high levels of deskilling and the dangers associated with denying workers the right to move jobs. Facilitating equality through lifelong learning and skills development opportunities, including English language training is also required. It is important to ensure access to employment services for all migrant workers, regardless of immigration status. There is a need to develop strategies to address job losses which respond to both indigenous and migrant workers.
In terms of lifelong learning, there is a need to upskill the existing workforce and those distant from the labour market. A considerable body of work is required to persuade a critical mass of employers to facilitate the lifelong learning of their workforce. Given the levels of redundancies and the rapidly changing nature of work, the gaps between the jobs being created and the workforce available will continue to grow. In paragraph 21 of its report, the Commission welcomes the appointment of a Minister for lifelong learning. However, it also notes that Ireland lags behind other EU countries. The target is 12.5% but in 2006, Ireland had only reached 7.5%.
Given the focus on the creation of the knowledge-based economy and a recognition of the need to upskill the existing workforce, it is important that developments in this area are clearly linked to activation so that the unemployed, lone parents, disabled peoples and others distant from the labour market can avail of future opportunities. To this end, the crucial question for the committee to consider is the implementation plan for the national skills strategy.
In paragraph 22, the Commission notes the effectiveness of active labour market programmes, also know as ALMPs. The numbers on ALMPs were set in 2004 and in the current climate of rising unemployment, revisiting this number would be advisable. It is also essential that greatly improved progression from ALMPs into more specific education and training courses and better paid employment be pursued. However, in pursuing such a goal, it is important that access to these programmes is not curtailed for groups that are harder to progress because they are discriminated against in other elements of the labour market.
The Commission states:
In general Ireland has partially succeeded in implementing measures to deliver on the employment policy commitment expressed in its national reform programme. Ireland addressed the points to watch in the employment area in some respect, but there is a need to establish clear timetables in key areas, including activation, integration and life-long learning in order to ensure that the pace of reform is stepped up.
This refers to paragraph 23 on page 6 of the commission's report.
The EAPN's employment working group supports the recommendation of the Commission. There is a need for clarity on how and when key areas of work will be undertaken. In order to access progress on these issues, improved data collection analysis to underpin improved monitoring and evaluation is also required.
I thank the committee for its time and we look forward to discussing the issues we have raised.
I thank the delegation for the presentation.
I wish to be the first to welcome the delegation. This is an issue of concern to me, particularly in my constituency of Carlow-Kilkenny where we are seeing how the slowdown in the economy is affecting people in terms of job losses. The people who are coming to my clinic and probably to those of my colleagues are trying find a way of upskilling, particularly those in lower-paid jobs in the hotel, tourism and construction sectors. The people who come to me are prepared to accept the poorest paid job just to have a job. They jump at the opportunity to have a job and then may be trapped in a job poverty trap because the job prospects, particularly for migrant workers or those with low skills, are bad. These people find it hard to get out of the poverty trap.
I have been very involved in education at a local level in my constituency. The back to education initiatives being promoted by the vocational education committees are very important. Language barriers are still a significant problem. Many people, particularly from eastern Europe, came to our shores with no English. They now find themselves without work on construction sites but they still have very poor English. This creates a barrier to upskilling, to progressing to a job in information technology or going into further education. One must speak the language of the country in which one is working or hoping to work.
I deal with many women and I have an interest in dealing with the poverty trap which affects women. I have come across many migrant workers, some of whom are women, in poor health. We should provide better quality health initiatives for some of those workers because this would give them higher self-esteem and enable them to look for better-paid jobs. I note that exploitation is a key factor. These are anecdotal references to what is happening in my constituency. Constituents are telling me they want to upskill, they want better education, they want better jobs and they want to ensure that their health is good. I am coming across a lot of health poverty which may be due to the language barrier. People do not want to go to a local doctor. The national skills strategy should concentrate not just on education but also on issues such as accommodation, health and language. If that base is right then the chances of a person getting a better job are enhanced. I thank the delegation for its input.
Mr. Paul Ginnell
I will deal with those questions and will ask Ms Edel McGinley from the Migrant Rights Centre Ireland to make some comments about women.
Ms Edel McGinley
We are aware of migrant workers who are caught in low-skilled, low-paid jobs and this makes them more vulnerable to exploitation because they are working in sectors that are less regulated. We would wish to see more enforcement in those sectors of employment.
With reference to the Deputy's comment about migrant women, many of those women are in the country on spouse-dependent visas, are at home on their own and often do not have access to any training or English language classes. There is a need for outreach approaches to be developed to target the most vulnerable people and women.
The presentation referred to mobility of workers. Some migrant workers' employment permits are attached to a particular sector of employment and to a particular employer. The new regulations in the Employment Permits Act 2006 allow movement if the worker applies for the permit personally but this regulation has not been enacted by the Department. We are in negotiations with the Department on this matter which is a serious barrier to integration and it keeps people in poverty traps and in low-skilled employment. This is a significant issue for migrant workers as regards their progression routes.
Ms Orla O’Connor
The progression of the national women's strategy is key for women on the margins of the workforce. It contains objectives and targets to deal with women who are marginalised. The progress of this strategy has been extremely slow in that it is one year since the Government published it before the general election. It should be dealing with the issue of migrant women and other women such as those returning to work, women relying on social welfare and those on unqualified adult payments. These are key groups and a lot of progress is pending the implementation of the national women's strategy.
I forgot to mention the qualified adult allowance. It is crucial that this allowance is put on a parity with the contributory and non-contributory pensions normally given. I hope there will be significant increases in these payments. The qualified adult allowance affects those women who do not have PRSI contributions and who find themselves dependent on a family member. The loss of dignity associated with the loss of financial independence is a factor. I hope the strategy will be implemented very quickly in order to support women in that position.
Mr. Ginnell referred to consultation and that is something we can try to improve because it will not cost much. What form of improved consultation would be desirable so that the committee can be of assistance?
Reference was made to the Departments of Social and Family Affairs and Enterprise, Trade and Employment working more closely. This is an issue which was discussed with the Minister in the Dáil. It seems that tackling this issue falls into the gap and no one takes ownership of it. The Department of Social and Family Affairs cuts back on entitlements if a person finds employment and this is often a disincentive to taking up a job unless it is a very well paid one. We need to look at that area to see how it can be made more attractive to take a job when it is offered. It is crazy that a person could be in a worse position by taking up a job. Somebody must decide there will be a change and one Department must decide to fix this problem. No one is sorting it out at present. I hope changes will be forthcoming.
There is very poor interaction at local level between agencies and Departments. They do not support each other. A person may have to go from one office to another and still may not be given the required assistance. I suggest the notion of a personal plan for each person involving all the agencies and services in an area. The TD is often the person in the middle phoning one Department or another on behalf of a constituent and this is a crazy situation.
On the issue of helping women who are disadvantaged to find employment, are more targeted agencies required to find job placements? I note that this works quite well with the probation service when dealing with former offenders. The Linkage programme specifically targets former offenders who are retrained and placed in employment. It has quite a high success rate probably because it is focused and targeted. Is there a need to increase the number of focus groups for a particular clientele? Is the agency adequate as it is or is there a need for it to be more focused on getting jobs?
We recently discussed the CE scheme. It is very good for some people. In some cases it is all they want to achieve, yet we try to terminate participation at the first opportunity or limit the amount of time one may participate in the scheme. The CE scheme is a useful way of getting people back into employment and building up their confidence and they may want the time they may spend in it increased. I would like to hear Mr. Ginnell's comments with regard to that.
What feedback does the agency get from the people with whom it works with regard to their engagement with the services? Do they believe they are getting a good service when they go to the FÁS office or to consult with social welfare staff? Do they believe they are being given a quick answer and put back out the door rather than experiencing real engagement and a real effort to try to help them? Too often there is strict adherence to the rules and regulations by the people implementing them and all interaction stops rather than an effort being made to push the boat out a little more or give a little more advice. That is of major concern.
Is there any access to career guidance for people seeking to re-enter the workforce? Many VECs and schools have career guidance counsellors and matters have improved in that area. However, in general, it seems there is no good quality career guidance to point people in the right direction and draw up an overall plan to suit an individual. What are Mr. Ginnell's views in that regard?
Mr. Paul Ginnell
We consider the consultation process for the national reform programme is very narrow, being limited to one discussion in social partnership and comments, mainly on a draft national reform programme last year. There was an opportunity to make submissions earlier but it is unclear to what extent they are taken on board. We would like a longer process with more discussion of the key issues that arise in progressing the national reform programme. Some of the issues need to be discussed in terms of targets where they may be weak. We need a longer and more open process which is not limited to a discussion in one room around social partnership but which takes place, perhaps at a local level with other groups that are not necessarily connected. In that way there will be more ownership around it. The Commission has called over and over again for member states to have a more inclusive process. The Commission has also called for discussion at local and at national government level in regard to the national reform programme. We are having such a discussion here but it should also happen on the floor of the Dáil.
There needs to be consistency across the economic and employment sections of the national reform programme in terms of addressing social inclusion issues. While we may have a discussion on some parts of the employment area, there also needs to be a broader discussion that examines the economic area because there is a very strong connection between economic and employment issues.
The question of Departments working together is a key issue which we have raised and which has been discussed in the Dáil. We would like to see the Department of Education and Science more engaged in the process. Currently it has not been named as a member of the structures that have been established around activation and around labour market structures. However, the Department plays a key role in supporting people's progression into employment. It is one Department that has not, so far, been linked in. In terms of implementation at local level, there have been pilots in some areas and examples of them working positively. However, there are clear examples where agencies do not work well together, where they become territorial around their time and how they share information. The examples where agencies have worked well could be mainstreamed and rolled out in other areas. That issue is of concern to us.
Where does it work well? We can return to the issue another day, but if there are specific areas where it works, we would like to be informed so that we can try to copy it.
Mr. Paul Ginnell
In some areas local employment services work with some of the agencies. Through the EQUAL community initiative there were also some pilots to get agencies to work together on casework involving personalised programmes and plans for individuals. Regarding work with specific target groups, the Linkage programme, which works with ex-offenders, seems to be working very well. Where there are certain difficulties with some groups, we encourage agencies, in terms of the activation programme, to work closely with community organisations and groups working at a local level with those target groups so that even if it is within the mainstream approach they are clear on how to target and address the issues of specific target groups, which can be quite varied. This is why the Linkage programme works so well. In all cases, if not necessarily setting up separate programmes for specific groups, it is about how the engagement happens with the support groups and the groups working with these other groups.
On engagement with FÁS services I can answer some of the questions but my colleagues, Ms Bríd O'Brien and Ms Kathleen McCann may have more specific information in that area and also in terms of career guidance. In terms of activation and participation programmes we encourage the putting in place of a very positive and supportive approach and proper training of the staff involved in terms of how to engage with individuals who face many barriers in moving from welfare supports into work. That needs to be very well organised and co-ordinated. The staff involved in that process in FÁS and in the Department of Social and Family Affairs need to be well trained and very supportive and positive in their approach to individuals. Perhaps my colleagues can give more specific information.
Ms Bríd O’Brien
In terms of what we have done, the issue of engagement is of concern. Many of our members say one needs to know more than the person to whom one is speaking in order to get the information from him or her. If one does know what one is asking in the first place, the person is unlikely to inform one. In terms of people moving from welfare to work, we would like to see front line staff from FÁS, the Department of Social and Family Affairs and Revenue being less reticent with information and more proactive about parting with it. This could be done in the case of the family income scheme. That scheme has many flaws, one being the size of the form to be filled out when applying for it. The person who is signing off will know the applicant has children. At the very least, they should inform the applicant of the back-to work scheme and other such schemes.
A similar situation applies when somebody moves from a welfare payment into employment, Revenue will have some idea what salary they will be on and should send them in the post information as to their tax liabilities, the family income scheme and so on. That quite simple measure could be taken straight away and it would be very useful. There is also the issue of having to get one's employer to stamp the form. If a person has been out of work a long time or has never had a job, he or she is highly unlikely to do that because, in effect, it is saying to the employer that he or she is not paying enough and one is asking the State to make up the difference. That leaves people in a very awkward position. Information about the family income scheme is a key piece of information. Take-up is still low but it has improved. It would assist many people moving from welfare to work, particularly low-paid work, if steps were taken to inform them about it.
The Department of Social and Family Affairs is not within the area of operation of the committee, but it has been given a great role in activation. That is why we made our points. That Department and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment may say the two Departments work quite well together. Our sense is that needs to be improved. In many areas front line staff say they know each other or that they work well together. It could be argued that they should, given that there are local employment services and area based partnerships in a number of areas, particularly where unemployment and social exclusion are high. There is still room for improvement. The system must be better at giving out information and making sure people know their entitlements. One should be able to make a personal plan, knowing that taking part in a particular training course will lead to a job. At present, there is no sense of that. Many people see no point in taking part in education or training courses that have no end in themselves. We would hate to see personal development courses coming to an end. They are of enormous benefit, particularly to people who suffer from disadvantage or exclusion. However, there must be progression to specific training which leads to something and whose outcome participants can see. A number of initiatives have demonstrated the extent of the challenge faced but have also shown that a programme with a beginning, middle and end, as well as an employment outcome, will have greatly improved participation rates. For example, the Civil Service ran an internship programme for Travellers which was greatly oversubscribed. Unfortunately, while that pilot programme was very successful it was not mainstreamed. A senior FÁS official, who has since retired, often said that many pilot schemes are doomed by their own success. We are very good at piloting ideas but we are not so good at applying the learning gained to enhancing standards in the mainstream so that pilots are no longer necessary.
Ms Kathleen McCann
The Congress Centres Network, the organisation for which I work, has approximately 500 CE participants. With the advent of high employment the calibre of applicants for CE places changed and the chance of these applicants getting mainstream work is not as realistic as was previously the case. In certain areas of the country unemployment levels remain relatively high. Many people living in remote areas do not have access to transport. Progression from CE schemes to mainstream employment is more realistic for some people than others. Community employment becomes a job. It is unfortunate that people employed on CE schemes are let go after a number of years.
In many organisations the sponsors provide a supportive environment for CE participants. When a scheme comes to an end participants are launched into the mainstream workforce with very few supports. Without those supports, people may be able to access employment but may not be able to stay in employment. There is a need for a transition phase with supports, either from the original sponsors or from FÁS. While FÁS provides guidance services, many CE participants are not aware of them. Furthermore, participants have a relationship with their sponsor rather than with FÁS.
There is also a great shortage of flexible work options, particularly in a contracting labour market. The vast majority of the 500 participants in the Congress Centres Network CE scheme are lone parents. Community employment works for them because it is local, part time and provides child care support. Mainstream work, on the other hand, is generally 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and full time. Flexible work options such as term-time or part-time working or job sharing are not widely available. Even when people are skilled they are often compromised by work-life balance issues. Unless links are made between agencies and Departments we will be activating people into inactivity.
I was the person who presented issues to the national reform programme on behalf of the community and voluntary pillar. The process provided a very narrow window. There was one meeting and a very brief consultation with a couple of days to respond to the draft. A huge part of our presentation this year consisted of comment on the paucity of the process and our comment does not seem to have been considered. I am also a member of the steering group for Towards 2016. The matter was not discussed there. None of the pillars appears to be debating the National Reform Programme process. The programme needs to be extended beyond the immediate social partners into the community and voluntary sector at large.
Would delegates support calls for the extension of the number of years a person may participate in a CE scheme? By calling for such extensions do we make things too easy for people?
I raised this matter in the House with the Minister. Many people over the age of 55 have spoken to me on the issue. In a rural area, participation in a CE scheme may become one's job. Is it not better to have people actively contributing to the community, in whatever form? The alternative is to condemn people to living on social welfare payments rather than having a mixture of social welfare and work.
I think the delegates agree with members on this issue.
The delegates need to be more than simply with us. Deputies of all parties have raised this matter in the Dáil because we all meet the same problems. I ask the visiting organisations to "get into the ring" and join politicians on this issue. People between the ages of 35 and 45 may participate in a CE scheme for three years. Older people and members of certain groups may be retained for an added year. I know of a person who is participating in a sports-related CE scheme and doing an excellent job. Everyone wants the person to remain on the scheme. It is one of the few opportunities he has to work and be lifted out of unemployment.
Members of this committee toured the Cork, Waterford and Tipperary region. In Carrick-on-Suir, we visited a jobs club which is to be closed down by FÁS, which is promising something better. If a project is going well and appears to be fulfilling its objectives should it not be allowed to continue? FÁS should take its lead from the Government and from the real participants in this process, such as our delegates. The purpose of this meeting is not to pay lip-service to the European Anti-Poverty Network and the organisations it represents. There is too much of that. We want real participation.
I am particularly concerned about CE schemes, formerly social employment schemes. Many communities throughout the country feel the same. Participation in CE schemes should not belittle people, but that is not happening. Participants themselves want to be on the pitch. Schemes should not be seen as a form of exploitation of workers by community groups. Participants in schemes are part of their communities and contribute to them. It has been said that the scheme may become the job. So what if it does? In the current economic climate a CE scheme could be the lifeblood of its participants.
There are people on those schemes who suffer from a particular illness that requires participation for 19 or 20 hours but that may be the very thing which takes them to another level. I am keen that the delegates add their voices to this. A Minister might say Deputies English and Penrose are in Opposition and are scrambling around for something to say but we are not. I could bring the delegates to two or three places in Westmeath, with which I know Mr. Ginnell is very familiar, and they would be surprised at how big an issue it has become. I support Deputy English in this regard.
Ms Kathleen McCann
That is the reality of the situation. Active labour market programmes also provide essential services. People come to the end of the programme and there is no other option for them. It is not that they become too comfortable. If the option is for them to sit at home and do nothing it unravels all the good work done during the period of the CE scheme. As long as they do not displace jobs and are not used for exploitation, we are very keen for there to be an option whereby people can function and make a contribution.
Ms Bríd O’Brien
I am concerned that people might think we are not highlighting CE by active labour market programmes.
I accept that.
Ms Bríd O’Brien
We will also include the jobs initiative, JI, which has been very successful in many areas in getting men back to work who had been excluded for quite a while. However, the scheme has been allowed to run into the ground. In our last budget submission we called for it to be reinvigorated. The difficulty caused by the capping of the numbers in 2004 lies in the fact that by leaving people on the scheme, to their own and their employers' benefit, there are fewer access points for other people who are finding it difficult to access education, training or employment. In that context we call for increased numbers.
That is a fair point.
Ms Bríd O’Brien
We need to consider other sources of employment for people doing work which is regarded as long term, to make those jobs better paid and more sustainable in the longer term. The CE and JI programmes have provided crucial access points for many people who do not have access to other areas of the labour market, even in the booming economy of the Celtic tiger. They are low-paid jobs so we must also ensure we get better resources for the work being done.
Ms O'Brien's last comment hits on a point the Minister mentioned. When there is an actual need for the job, as well as a need on the part of the person doing it, who takes ownership of it? The job might come under different categories, such as education or sport, but somebody in Government must take control of it and make a decision. It would be a shame just to end it. As Ms O'Brien said, there is a double need — a job which needs to be done and a job needed by the person involved. However, no one wants to own it as it costs money and that is the problem. Departments need to wake up and pay for it together to solve the problem.
I thank the Chairman and I thank the group for its presentation. I work in the north inner city and have seen the changes that have happened in the past few years. I agree wholeheartedly with the Chairman that there needs to be a refocusing of CE as to what it is and where it is going. An attempt was made a couple of years ago, in the form of the jobs initiative and other schemes, to come up with a replacement for CE. I also agree with Ms McCann that it works for some people but not for others. It has made a crucial difference to young mothers' lives in the north inner city, where services such as child care and access to health care have played a crucial role. There needs to be a refocusing and a review of where CE is going.
The delegates mentioned barriers. One of my interests is in community child care and there have been huge improvements and investment in that area but where do we go from here? What do we need to do to ensure the lack of child care is not a barrier?
Another issue is social housing for young mothers. I come across communities in which young mothers, with children aged ten, 11 or 12 still live in the family home, causing huge tension within the home. Without social housing they find it extremely difficult to move on, to make their own life and go on to further education, training or employment as they need to do. Some of the girls to whom I refer are in their early 20s.
How does the delegation view the interaction with local authorities and the role local authorities play in setting requirements for people to avail of opportunities to move on? There is a huge migrant population in central Dublin and we have encountered various issues relating to housing, employment, etc. The presentation mentioned changes in the employment market and a slowdown in that regard. I remember a time when the unemployment rate was 16% or 18%. According to the FÁS quarterly report it is now 6%, and the general consensus is that it will not continue to rise at a very fast rate. How do the delegates see the pressures of changes in the labour market affecting the immigrant community? Do they envisage tensions within those communities, or with the wider indigenous community? People who have come to this country from other countries are now employers themselves, employing people from within their own immigrant community, and that can cause as many problems as arise with an Irish employer. There are issues to be tackled in that regard.
Ms Orla O’Connor
The Deputy asked where we should go in respect of community child care. The most significant issue now is that of affordability. In urban areas there is little concern in terms of the number of places but there is more concern in terms of affordability because we have left child care to the private market. In our presentation we mentioned the community subvention scheme, which we see as very problematic and the cause of serious concern. It sets up a new poverty trap for mothers coming off social welfare and trying to gain access to employment. The salary they would need to cover child care costs is so high as to make it impossible.
I find it hard to understand the thinking behind the subvention. It is right to target disadvantage but to do so in a way that stops people taking up employment seems illogical. I am sure members will know that because there has been much campaigning by parents and child care providers over these concerns. I do not think the changes announced prior to Christmas will resolve the issue. We need affordable and publicly-subsidised child care, as is the case in countries that have high participation rates, both for women generally and women with children. We have to grapple with the issue but we have not done so yet. We must meet the challenge in the next few years because for women with more than one child there is a significant rate of drop-out in terms of participation in the labour force. The women's council believes that is not by choice. That issue of affordability is a huge factor in making that decision.
Ms Edel McGinley
It is a big question. Unfortunately, migrant workers are concentrated in the lower skilled sectors and probably will continue to be in those sectors, as happens in other countries. That will probably continue to be the case regardless of downturns in the economy. Without those clear progression routes for migrant workers that will cause a problem.
The issue of tensions in local communities must be addressed now, by examining ways, and working with community and voluntary groups, to create spaces and dialogue around differences and similarities. That needs resourcing at local and community level. Without that dialogue we possibly will see tensions rise. If we continue to keep people in lower skilled sectors without progression routes, if we keep them in enclaves tensions will be created. Certain sectors of migrant workers do not have access to any FÁS services and this negates their progression. If they are made redundant they can become undocumented. A person undocumented in the state is much more vulnerable and at risk of exploitation and other forms of abuse.
Regarding migrant workers as employers, there is a need for some targeted approaches to examine what responsibilities people have in terms of employment legislation. That might come via the local council. There is a need to look at that too.
I have a question about child care. Are the delegates concerned about this? I agree with them as I am a director of a community child care centre. I am worried about the issue. I can understand why the Minister has his targets but this particular form of targeting does not lead to integration. It is at the margins that hard cases become evident. Community child care involves a lot of work. Visits must be made to individual parents to get information that is confidential. I do not want to know if a person is getting family income supplement, FIS, or social welfare benefits. An aspect of community child care in our operation was that we discriminated in favour of the less well-off, the marginalised. We operated very efficiently in that way. Nobody was left without a place. Under the current system that will not be as easy to implement.
I agree with the speakers. It is a matter of affordability. No matter what is said, many of those who were working were also subsidising. There was a cross-subsidisation from the top even though it might not have been apparent. A second aspect of the operation was that a significant number of one-parent families were getting an opportunity. That will not work now, even with selected discrimination in favour of the marginalised as defined. Given the child-supervisor ratio required, what will happen eventually is that there will not be enough income to sustain the care. It will be regulated out of existence because the necessary finance for survival will be lacking. That is the crucial point.
I know this because I am a director of a good centre with up to 50 children, who come from all walks, which is important. Everybody meets and is integrated in a community setting. I understand from where the Minister is coming but we could strangle a golden goose with bureaucracy. By setting out a targeting system that has merit I believe we could do it in a different way and still achieve that level of integration which is so important.
The delegates are right. Affordability is the key issue. Even those who have jobs are just about able to survive when everything is added in, such as the car that brings them to their jobs and the community child care at reasonable cost. If we increase that cost from €60 to €80 a week to €130 a week — I realise that Deputy Brady will say that even that figure is peanuts in terms of city costs — with two children, that will come to €260 instead of the present €150. That could be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
I am extremely concerned in the long term. My view is a simple one, perhaps a Labour Party view, which says that affordable child care is as necessary as learning to read and write. It is critical. The one unquantified thing that comes out of child care at that level is that there is a seamless transition from child care to primary school. In Munster there were acclimatisation programmes and other schemes. Now the children have integrated and mixed at that level and pass with their friends into primary school. They settle down much more quickly and earlier and are attuned to an educational environment. That is an unquantified benefit that does not come out from any of the accountants' cost benefit evaluations.
I remember a young lad running away from school one time and we spent a day looking for him, which was great for us but the point was that back then it took a long time for a child to settle in school. Now it is seamless. The primary school teachers and principals with whom we are involved say that even in that context child care is invaluable.
The other issue I ask for comment on concerns the new proposals for lone parent or one-parent families. I believe there have been pilots in Kilkenny and Dublin. They are good proposals. It is time to be rid of social welfare inspectors sitting in cars outside the gates of houses wondering whether a partner is sitting inside. Great amounts of money were consumed in such inspections.
Ultimately, this whole project will only work if there are adequate child care facilities available, if the existing poverty traps are removed and if no new ones are created. A change in mindset is needed. FÁS courses may need to be available at out of hours times. Otherwise all the well-founded and well put together proposals could fall flat. I believe that Ms Camille Loftus did a research exercise on this aspect which was utterly revealing. People might end up further back than they started if this is not handled in a sensitive and more accommodating way that has been set out initially.
Ms Orla O’Connor
The Chairman is correct concerning the lone parent proposals. So many of the proposals in the Government discussion paper are welcome but they fall down when it comes to the supports. We have already spoken about affordable child care but some of the issues that Ms O'Brien mentioned earlier are also involved, for instance the way in which mainstream programmes can be changed. For example, what is the point in having FÁS courses that start at 8.30 p.m.? How will they be accessible for mothers? There is also the question of availability of part-time programmes. There must be changes in the mainstream system before those proposals can work to the benefit of lone parents and also to other qualified adults.
Mr. Paul Ginnell
Last year, our employment working group prepared a briefing paper for members and policy makers on the importance of developing positive activation. Much of what we raised in our presentation today relates to our concerns about how activation programmes are implemented. These concerns are particularly relevant in the current climate where dramatic changes are taking place. There has been little movement since the document was prepared in the middle of last year. The report sets out our assessment of the current situation. In addition, it outlines what we consider the key elements of a model of positive activation, whether it be lone parents or other groups who are the targets or beneficiaries of the relevant measures. I will give the clerk a copy of this report so that members may read it if they wish. It is important in terms of highlighting both our concerns and the positive ways in which activation policy can be implemented. It is a policy that can be beneficial for those concerned if implemented in a positive and supportive way.
I thank Mr. Ginnell, Ms McCann, Ms McGinley, Ms O'Brien and Ms O'Connor for attending the meeting. This has been a useful exchange. Mr. Ginnell has raised some important issues and I appreciate his undertaking to give a copy of the report to which he referred to the committee. I understand this is a comprehensive document which may well require further study and refinement to take account of the issues raised by Mr. Ginnell with reference to the formulation of economic and social policy. We certainly take on board the points made regarding the need for the national reform programme to incorporate a meaningful participation process rather than what Mr. Ginnell has described, which is mere tokenism. The participatory element must be much stronger than that.
I am sure the delegates will agree to attend another meeting of the committee in due course. I understand they attended two meetings of the previous committee. It is not unknown for us to try to set a record, so the delegates should not be surprised if they are invited to three meetings. The committee members are very innovative.