JOINT COMMITTEE ON ENTERPRISE, TRADE AND EMPLOYMENT debate -
Thursday, 17 Dec 2009

Economic and Social Crisis: Discussion.

Deputy Cyprian Brady took the Chair.

Vice Chairman

The employment working group of European Anti-poverty Network Ireland has prepared a position paper on Tackling the Economic and Social Crisis. I welcome Mr. Paul Ginnell, Ms Bríd O'Brien and Mr. Philip O'Connor.

I draw witnesses' attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against any person outside the House or any official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Mr. Paul Ginnell

I thank the Vice Chairman and members for the opportunity to make a presentation to the joint committee. We made a presentation previously to the committee, which we found useful and productive. The European Anti-Poverty Network employment working group includes a range of representatives from different anti-poverty social inclusion organisations which the European Anti-Poverty Network co-ordinates. It monitors and engages with developments in employment policy. Much of the focus of our group is on the European employment strategy and its implementation in Ireland. The focus of our group is on people distant from the labour market and those who are employed on low incomes or in low-skill, precarious jobs.

The focus of this presentation is Tackling the Economic and Social Crisis, a paper which was circulated during the summer. We are also taking into account developments since then.

Mr. Philip O’Connor

We are in a severe economic and unemployment crisis. The response of commentators and Government in the past year has been almost exclusively on the financial aspects of the crisis and to some extent on the broader economic questions. We need to focus on employment.

The Government strategy was set out clearly in the budget. The focus is on innovation and the smart economy as the driver of jobs in the future. Employment growth is seen as a consequence that will follow a revival of the export traded sector. The focus is on promoting enterprise and assisting small and medium sized enterprises in their access to finance, support and development of green technology industries and reducing barriers to job creation. What is striking about the whole approach is that it is dependent on a recovery of global markets and Irish exports. We all hope that will happen but nevertheless that will take time.

There are more than 400,000 people on the live register, but more fundamental is that 200,000 jobs have been destroyed since the start of the crisis and a destroyed job is something very difficult to replace. Reliance on a global recovery means that there is almost acceptance that we could be looking at high unemployment rates of 12% or more for a decade or so. In such an environment the State, Government and national forces need to intervene to maximise employment and take the steps required to reduce unemployment while waiting for the global recovery. Everybody who remembers the 1980s will be aware of the capacity of unemployment to be socially destructive. It has been pointed out that when young people are unemployed at the start of their working lives, they may not recover and they suffer the consequences. We need intervention by the State to minimise unemployment while we await the global recovery.

To the extent that the public capital programme is maintained, the Government and Opposition should focus on the employment potential of investment in national infrastructure, and what major infrastructure projects will assist in delivering high levels of employment, and take this into account when making judgment on the types of projects that should go ahead.

There is a great deal of focus on SMEs and start-ups and so on but very little attention is given to the area that can assist those who are unemployed and who may have skills but little hope of getting back to paid employment — that is, self-employment and micro-enterprise. People may want to set up a business with one or two people and have no ambitions to become major employers. There is a lack of focus on getting supports to those people as quickly as possible. Many people would be prepared to take the risk of trying to set up a business rather than face a bleak employment market.

There is a focus on the internationally traded manufacturing sector, but in Dublin more than 85% of all employment is in the services sector and we should see more supports for it, as well as more support for all aspects of developing green technology, such as insulation and other areas that have massive employment potential in the short term and are within our domestic economy and not dependent on global markets.

We need to consider maximising the potential of social employment options, such as community employment, the jobs initiative and the new activation programme announced by Government. There is major potential for delivering community and local services and we cannot allow a situation to emerge as in the 1980s, when catastrophically high unemployment led to the drugs crisis and the collapse of society and communities, especially in urban areas. We would like to see the work placement programme extended to the public sector. I accept there are some industrial relations issues, but there is willingness on all sides of the social partnership to find a realistic way of doing it. There is major potential to enable people who have become unemployed to be placed in jobs in the public sector, which would be a revenue-neutral option for the State but would keep many people connected with the labour market.

Unemployment is a catastrophe for individuals, especially young people. Although I do not want to single out its impact on young people, we know that it has a catastrophic impact on the life chances of people who come out of school and are unemployed for five years or more. There is an onus on politicians from all sides of the House to bring to the notice of employers that they should look at all options other than making people redundant, such as short time working, and other options that have worked well in Holland, Germany and elsewhere. Employers should be urged to take that path in Ireland. We would like to see the short time working programme expanded to facilitate maximum take-up across all sectors, again including the public sector.

To maintain social stability and social cohesion, which is a priority of all politicians, it is important during this very difficult period that we do not see the labour market being reduced to labelling people as yellow-pack people and that we do not allow employment rights and standards in the workplace to be eroded and undermined, which can happen easily in a time of recession. I urge Members to be extremely vigilant in ensuring that we maintain the high standards that have been achieved in employment and that we keep focussed so that those standards are not allowed to slide.

Ms Bríd O’Brien

I will focus on training, education and employment services. At a time of rising unemployment, an issue that will become difficult to address is long-term unemployment. As Mr. Philip O'Connor stated, we need to take action now to address these issues to ensure we do not end up with long-term unemployment becoming the entrenched problem it was back in the 1980s and early 1990s. Yesterday, the quarterly national household survey released its latest report which covers the months from July to September. It shows that long-term unemployment is now 3.2%. For most of this decade it remained at under 2% — roughly between 1.3% and 1.7%. Unemployment is rising and that is an issue we need to focus on. We must look at ways to address it.

It is extremely important that employment services and training and education services are built around the people who need them and are designed to meet their needs. Tools such as profiling could be used to target resources more effectively. We need good career guidance and this is particularly important at this time of limited resources, so that people end up in the right courses that match their interests and abilities but also offer future opportunities for them. I would hate to see in a year or two that we have created jobs, but still there are hundreds of thousands of people unemployed because the two do not go together when people go on the wrong education and training programmes. We need to get that right. We need to examine how to maximise outcomes from programmes and not minimise input costs.

With the current crisis in the public finances, the focus is on minimising input costs. If we do not start to look at how we ensure optimal outcomes, we will have significant issues to address in 2010 and beyond. The reality is that participation in mainstream education secures better employment outcomes for people and there is plenty of research to back that up. We need to look at that. What was quite striking about budget 2010 was that the Minister announced that there were additional training and education places but he did not highlight the fact that under the heading of education and science, some of the support grants, including the back to education allowance for people to go back to college or into VTOS, were cut. Those grants were small enough. If we are to have a smart economy, people will need higher levels of formal education to access those jobs. It seems incongruous that we have this vision and on the other hand we are taking away the supports. That does not seem to be a sensible way to proceed.

Unemployed people have raised the issue of quality provision. They have a very strong sense that they do not get good information when they engage with employment services. They invariably feel they are being sent on a course to put a bum on a seat rather than a course that will get them somewhere. It is crucial that unemployed people get good career guidance so that they can talk out their options with staff and end up on the correct course for them. Training must enhance participants' employability. There is a sense that they end up doing a range of courses. I met a young lady who wanted to get a job and was going on courses that did not seem to relate to each other. When employment picks up again, will an employer think she cannot stick at something, while in fact she was trying to do the right thing. Progression routes are crucial. It is an issue we did not tackle when we should have during the Celtic tiger years. People went on training and employment programmes but did not successfully access sustainable employment. That is an issue we must address and it is still a challenge facing community employment. If we do not plan the work placement programme properly, it will present as an issue in the years to come. We must ensure we tease this out and this will require working across the employment, social welfare and education training services, which must all talk to each other so that people can progress from one to the next and onwards.

An issue which has presented recently concerns one area from which additional training places have come; namely, the breaking up by FÁS of longer courses into smaller modules. People go on these and subsequently find things very difficult because either they do not progress to another education or training programme or they do not find a job, which is extremely difficult in the current climate, as Mr. O'Connor outlined. They must then go back on their welfare payments and there are issues in that regard. The transition from welfare into education or training and employment and back needs to be made smoother. There is a challenge here and we must be realistic about it.

Another striking feature of yesterday's quarterly national household survey was the drop of more than 200,000 in the number of people in full-time employment. Part-time, contract or piecemeal work is more likely to come on stream than full-time employment and we must sort out how people move from one to another and back so that they are not discouraged from taking up education or training and employment because of that dynamic.

In terms of investment, there is a need to improve the skill levels of the most vulnerable sectors and to maintain investment in education and training. As in previous budgets, in budget 2010 there were swings and roundabouts and the robbing of Peter to pay Paul. We need to address that.

The national skills strategy was published two years ago — or a report calling for same that metamorphosed into the strategy. The action implementation plan has not been published yet and is badly needed. If ever we needed to ensure we spend money in the right place it is now, when we have less of it. That is badly needed.

Flexibility in education and training provision is crucial. Another striking feature of the budget, particularly for younger people, was the cut in their welfare payment. If they go on an education or training programme they will get the full allowance but we feel strongly the payment should not have been cut. A very negative message was sent to young people. We will need this generation to get Ireland back on its feet.

Flexibility and choice are vital. A question unemployed people regularly raise with us is: "Why do they not run the good courses more often?" When a course has a good reputation far more people will seek to go on it than there will be places for. Very often when there are places it will be because good information did not go out about the course concerning availability, what it is about and what its potential is, or else word will have gone out among people that it is not a good course and will not get them anywhere. Choice and flexibility are crucial to ensure people end up well. Forcing people onto courses they do not want to go on or that will not get them anywhere is not a good use of resources, especially in the current climate.

From a practical point of view, we are very concerned about last week's budget in which social welfare payments were cut. We called for this not to happen and we wish the Social Welfare Bill had not been raced through the Dáil. The other striking thing that emerged concerns community employment, CE, for which the cut was even greater. There is the loss in terms of the social welfare element but also the training element that went with the participant, which means that €24.40 has been cut back to €20 and CE participants are losing €12.70. The loss of 5.6% of their income has had a bigger impact and is most regrettable. In terms of encouraging participation that is a very regrettable move.

Mr. Paul Ginnell

I will move into the areas of taxation and social welfare. These may not be directly related to the role of this committee but before going into the details shown on the slide I point out if we have learned any lesson from the current economic and social crisis it is that a stable and sustainable tax base is essential for any state. We need a tax base that allows for the development of a strong social protection system and public services that meet the needs of people within the country and allow people to move into dignified work. That explains the very clear link to the other issues we raised regarding tax and social welfare.

We welcome the announcement of a carbon tax but are disappointed that in budget 2010 the Government did not stick to its multi-annual plan announced in the supplementary budget in April whereby tax increases were to have played a larger role in the €4 billion adjustment for 2010. We propose that the Government had and has choices to make other than the cuts it made. We encourage the Government to proceed with its announcement of a property tax, which it is to consider in 2011. This was proposed also by the Commission on Taxation report. I must take account of low-income families and the issues they have.

There are a number of other proposals and options for broadening the tax base, including ending State subventions for private services such as health and education and addressing tax expenditure options such as applying tax relief at the standard rate. Although our emphasis is on broadening and deepening the tax base, we also support increased tax revenue from higher earners. A number of options were put forward by different parties and actors, including the introduction of a higher tax rate for people earning over €100,000 and the possible abolition of the PSRI ceiling. There was an announcement in the budget that there would be an overall review of the tax system in the coming year. We hope to be involved in that and look forward to any engagement in such a review.

There is a particular issue with regard to the minimum wage. The national reform programme progress report came out in recent months and stated that successive budgets contained measures to ensure that all persons on the minimum wage should be removed from the tax net. This was designed to encourage those on low income, especially those on the minimum wage, to enter and remain in employment. We think that is very important and is a policy to which the Government should stick. The Commission on Taxation report also supports keeping those on national minimum wage out of the tax net. However, in the supplementary budget in April, the income levy was applied to people on various incomes including many of those on the minimum wage who, effectively, are now in the tax net. Budget 2010 announced a new universal social contribution for all income earners. If it is applied in the same way, this, too, will include those on the national minimum wage. We propose that there should be no reduction in the national minimum wage and that those on that wage should continue to be kept out of the tax net.

Social welfare supports play a very important role in supporting the full economic participation of everyone in society. An example is social transfers which play a very important part in poverty reduction. According to the Central Statistics Office, in 2008 they had the effect of reducing poverty levels from 43% to 14.4%. Therefore, maintaining social welfare levels is extremely important. The cost of living was used as a disavocation for cutting social welfare and it was stated in budget 2010 that there had been a reduction in the cost of living of 6.6%, according to the consumer price index. Overall, however, if one removes housing costs, the reduction in the cost of living is only 2.1%; the harmonised consumer price index has it as 2.8%. The joint effects of the supplementary budget and budget 2010 will reduce social welfare by 6% in total, which is much greater than what many people experienced in reductions in their cost of living. Apart from reducing social welfare levels by 2%, the supplementary budget also reduced the ceiling for qualification for rent supplement. This gives people an extra rent cost of between €15 and €20.

As Ms O'Brien outlined, we have particular concerns about the cuts in jobseeker's allowance for young people and under 25s to €100 and €150, respectively, along with the threats to cut social welfare payment levels for those who do not take up offers of training and employment places. As Ms O'Brien mentioned, in the current situation this will affect access to adequate training places. In addition, the quality of that training is sometimes in question. The lack of jobs will push people further and further into poverty. I refer to the CSO statistic for the income levels of those at risk of poverty. The CSO stated the level for 2008 was €238.60. Effectively, anyone below that level is at risk of poverty. Currently, anyone on a minimum social welfare payment receives less than €200 and is, effectively, at risk of poverty by more than €40 according to those 2008 rates. Therefore, we call for a reversal of the cuts already made and that no further cuts to social welfare supports be made.

Several other issues were raised in our position paper of last summer. These include better access to social welfare supports for migrants. I refer to the habitual residency condition for migrants. They must try to prove their qualification for some social welfare supports and this can be quite difficult compared to the rest of the population. Overall, there is an ongoing issue and we call for the reform of the social welfare system to address poverty traps and to make it employment friendly. Cuts in secondary benefits and issues of child care arise in this regard. I thank the committee for its attention.

Deputy Willie Penrose took the Chair.

Chairman

We will move on to questions. I apologise for my absence. I was dealing with a Bill in the Dáil. Life never runs smoothly. I thank my very able deputy who has been of great assistance throughout the year and I wish to acknowledge in public the work of Deputy Cyprian Brady as Vice Chairman. He has always been ready to step in. Deputies Morgan and White and Senators John Paul Phelan and Ryan wish to speak.

Deputy Arthur Morgan

I thank the Chairman and the Vice Chairman for allowing me to contribute at this stage because I must leave at 3 p.m., which is most unfortunate. I thank the delegation for its excellent presentation. I commend it for the restraint in its language because, given the flat figures, the contribution was presented dispassionately. I am sure the delegation had significant difficulty in so doing.

Chairman

If one does not do that it is hard to hear it.

Deputy Arthur Morgan

Yes, I am beginning to sound like the Chairman. This committee has a history of not being party political and of simply dealing with the issues. I hope I will be able to display the restraint shown by the delegation.

I refer to some of the issues that arise from the presentation, especially the county development programme projects. There are several such projects in my constituency and I have received representations from others. I do not suggest this has taken place throughout the land, because it has not, but I have received a substantial number of representations. These projects offer a gentle step back into education for very impoverished people, usually living in very impoverished communities. They also offer counselling and an anchor in the community. Is that the understanding of the delegation from the feedback it has received on these projects and the value it puts on them?

The minimum wage will be the next target for IBEC and those who wish to press down wages. The issue of a living wage will be increasingly pushed aside. We are told this is possible because of the 6% decrease in the cost of living. However, we know the costs of primary and secondary education have soared, not only in terms of transport, but across the board. In addition, we are aware that the costs of visits to general practitioners and dentists have gone up. Someone with a medical card must pay for various items of medication. All of this dumbfounds me. I wish to hear the view of the delegation on the impact it could have in this regard. Will the delegation elaborate on its views on the possible reduction in the living wage, please?

The length of some FÁS courses has been shortened. Will this devalue certain courses somewhat? Certain courses that took several months to complete have been reduced in some cases to between six and ten weeks and this will have an impact on participants.

The issue of return to education was touched upon. I hope others have not received the same number of representations I have received with regard to back to education grants because I have been inundated. Never before have I seen the level of difficulties with the applications that is occurring at present, or the sizable number of people that are being refused and delayed.

The delegation referred to labour intensive infrastructure developments, especially with regard to the national development plan. The obvious example is that of schools because we are aware of the use of portakabins in schools with the attendant draughts and cold and so on. Are there any other developments to which the delegation may wish to refer?

I refer to micro start-ups. I believe the view of the delegation is spot on. This is an area of low-hanging fruit in respect of job creation. Will the delegation provide some insight into its ideas on how to incentivise micro-businesses and how to get them up and running? We are aware FDI, foreign direct investment, is moving to the Far East and Middle East and is unlikely to come here in the near future. I apologise if I have spoken for too long.

Mr. Paul Ginnell

We are very disappointed with the direction community development projects are taking. Effectively, by next year the community development programme will be no more. What exists at present will be integrated into local partnership companies as part of a new programme. However, the community development programme is very important and is linked closely to people in communities to ensure a bottom-up approach and a direct link with those communities. People are very annoyed, disappointed and angry at the implications for their communities of the loss of the programme. Community development projects play a very important role in terms of meeting the needs of local people and in terms of access to education and linking people to existing supports and systems. At a local and national level we must inform the way these services and supports are developed, put in place and progressed. They play a very important role as well in terms of policy development.

I refer to the national minimum wage. Currently, we are very concerned that many of the changes will affect people on lower incomes — that is, those on social welfare or those working but on lower incomes. Some of the changes in taxation or the income levy will affect those on the minimum wage and those on lower incomes and this has the direct effect of moving people more directly into poverty. The latest CSO statistics state that 6.7% of those in work are at risk of poverty. There is a key issue here in terms of the link between low income jobs and the number of people at risk of poverty. We are aware of the level of debt facing certain people. This will have an increased impact in this area as well. We support any campaigns related to holding the minimum wage at the existing level and not imposing any taxation or levies on people on or below the minimum wage as it stands.

Ms Bríd O’Brien

I refer to the question of shorter FÁS courses. The lack of an implementation plan for the national skills strategy is very problematic. Shorter courses may be a sensible way to proceed, depending on to whom we are referring, the nature of the course and the potential outcome. It could be a sensible way to proceed if and when job creation comes back on stream because some people may not need a longer course. FÁS maintains that it is responding in part to what was asked of it by those newly unemployed. People were not keen on taking a longer course and believed they did not need such a long course in certain cases. However, some of the changes have been made to create a sense that there are more places than there are in reality. We need a better handle on where the courses are in reality, where the extra places announced last week will be allocated and what such places will link to. This would better enable people to get a sense of where the course they are taking on will get them ultimately, even if it does not get them there immediately. Unfortunately, unemployment is unlikely to come down in the near future because there is so little job creation. The issue is to try to get a handle on this and to get good information. What is really missing is a plan or vision of where the jobs will be created and how people will have the appropriate education and training and skill sets for those jobs.

Senator John Paul Phelan

I apologise for missing Mr. O'Connor's contribution at the start of the meeting, but I heard the rest of the presentation and I compliment him on it. I agree with Deputy Morgan that Mr. O'Connor used very restrained language. I am somebody who believes in not getting emotionally involved in issues but I cannot understand why the jobseeker's allowance paid to those under 25 years of age will be cut. I came straight from education to here seven years ago. I was lucky to get a job but I know many young people who have left third level education and who, through no fault of their own, cannot get a job.

Last year, 70 physical education students graduated from the University of Limerick, 11 of whom are currently in Dubai trying to get work and six of whom are in London, while several others are in other parts of the world. They are secondary school teachers, some of whom have the highest qualifications one can achieve in the course, but they cannot get work. I see this issue as a policy decision, in effect, by the Government to force such people into emigration.

I had a row with the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Mary Hanafin, last night during the Seanad debate on the Social Welfare and Pensions (No. 2) Bill. She said people can go into education. However, some people have just left education, or the courses they want to do may not be available. I compliment the delegation on its restraint but, in my ten years as an elected public representative, I have never seen a measure which was so targeted at a particular group.

In the Irish context, we have a history of emigration and it is difficult to understand why the Government would take this type of policy decision now. It is not fair for it to point out that many of those under 25 years of age are living at home or whatever. Many of them are not; they have commitments and children of their own, and may be married or living away from home. To implement a universal cut as it has done is absolutely disgraceful.

On the national skills strategy, which Ms O'Brien mentioned a number of times in her comments, I have been trying to find some sense of direction from the Government as to when we will see an implementation plan for it. Has the delegation seen any light at the end of the tunnel as to when that will happen? One witness is shaking his head at me. I have not been able to find that information either.

Another issue I wish to raise is that of community employment schemes. It has been the policy of the Government over the past few years to reduce them, with a view towards eliminating them. I see them as having a great value, in particular at a time like this when unemployment is rising and construction in rural areas has collapsed. As many people may not have many other job opportunities, the community employment schemes should be beefed up in such areas. The delegation may have suggestions as to how we could do that.

I concur with Deputy Morgan regarding his comments on the back to education allowance. Third level students, some of whom have been in college since September and who are having their first bite of the cherry in education, are experiencing major problems in getting their grants. The embargo pertaining in the public service is part of the problem, as people cannot be taken on to handle queries. Such people have bills to pay and are paying rent and many will not receive a maintenance grant until March or April next year. How will we help people who are currently in specific difficulties?

Chairman

They are statements more than questions, but there are a number of questions.

Mr. Philip O’Connor

Deputy Morgan raised the issue of infrastructure. Schools and the HSE capital programmes are obvious examples. We need an all-Government approach whereby, before a capital investment programme is delayed by several years because of cost, consideration should be given to the fact that if the project goes ahead it will employ 100 carpenters and so forth. There is also great scope in the local authority area to try to maintain blue-collar employment, in particular, those working in skilled areas such as construction. The same approach should be taken in proceeding with environmental improvement schemes.

He also referred to micro-enterprises, which involve one or two people who wish to set up a small business which they do not plan to expand. The city and county enterprise boards are currently inundated with proposals for setting up businesses. They are all in the larger category and are being examined in terms of their export potential and other factors.

In a time of high unemployment, many people will try to become self-employed or set up small businesses rather than face a protracted period on the dole. Often the types of support they need are very small. When they look for help such as start-up grants, the sums involved are often hundreds rather than thousands of euro. They need help with tax, accounts and other things about which they know very little. We need to put resources into FÁS centres and other places so that when people go there, they are given a link to where they can get such help very easily and they can start their businesses. At a time like this, there is significant potential in self-employment.

Senator Phelan referred to the skills strategy and Ms O'Brien stated its implementation plan is as invisible as ever. Although we had boom times, the single most important fact to emerge from the report of the expert group on future skills needs was that at the time the report was done there were some 500,000 people working in the labour market who it felt needed to improve their FETAC skills by one level if they were to have any hope of retaining their jobs over the next ten years. Maintaining access to workplace training, even during a downturn — which can provide an opportunity — is essential.

Workplace training to educate people beyond leaving certificate level should be expanded now, and would be time and money very well spent because people who are in vulnerable jobs, companies or sectors would be more likely not to fall out of employment. If people become unemployed, they would be able to get back on a rung of the ladder as a result of lifelong learning which involves training or education while they are in employment.

I commend FÁS for "One Step Up" and other programmes, of which significant numbers of people have availed, but it is under threat as the focus is currently on those who have recently become unemployed. While that is important and I praise the Government for some of the steps which have been taken, we must maintain a focus on basic skills and education levels for people who are in work, self-employment or whatever, and keep the option open for people. It will give people some type of capital when things eventually begin to improve.

Some Deputies were late to the meeting, but as I said at the start, the Government is taking some initiatives. However, they are dependent on a global upturn. It will be five, six or ten years before we see the employment benefits of such initiatives. I do not think anyone on any side of the Houses would relish the prospect of 12% unemployment for a decade because the devastation it would wreak would be horrendous.

From the European Anti-Poverty Network perspective, strategies for getting us back to growth through exports, etc., are great, but in the meantime every effort should be made, through the types of measures we outlined today, to try to maintain levels of employment, stop people falling into unemployment and not allow large numbers of young people to start their lives with an unemployment experience, which is catastrophic in the longer term.

Deputy Mary Alexandra White

I thank the Chairman. I want to focus on two questions.

I welcome the delegation. In the revised programme for Government, a large number of the education cuts were reversed. There are no fees for third level, capital funding for school projects has been maintained and every child with special needs now has access to a National Educational Psychological Services psychologist, which is important.

In terms of job creation, the delegation referred to retrofitting and insulation projects, which will create 10,000 to 15,000 jobs immediately, something which we welcome.

I want to target two points under training and education for Ms O'Brien to answer. She said there should be good career guidance to enable people identify and develop their abilities and future opportunities. As somebody who was involved in training and closely involved with Carlow Vocational Education Committee before I was elected to this House, I believe the presentation skills leave a great deal to be desired. The training is in place, and I know from employers who have come to me looking for people to take up employment that the skills of candidates to present themselves well for jobs are very important. They might have the academic qualifications and the interest but the actual presentation skills in some cases were deficient. That is something that Ms O'Brien should come back to us on. Does she have any ideas on career guidance or presentation skills from an employment point of view? If we are focusing on training, part of the training will have to be presentation to a prospective employer in terms of how one can get across the line and get the job. That is crucially important.

People have come to me in Carlow-Kilkenny to raise the issue of people attempting to get jobs at any cost. I will give the example of a car mechanic in County Kilkenny who was trying to get a job. When I talked to him about his lack of success he said he did not want to be a car mechanic and that he wanted to get into horticulture but he had been fed a line that this might suit him. More time must be spent on either the career choice or the training to ensure we match people to the jobs that might be available. That is something on which I would be interested to hear Ms O'Brien's views.

On the statement that participation in mainstream education is more likely to secure better employment opportunities, the representatives are right. We have to catch the people who are falling through the net. Have they up to date statistics on literacy levels? There is a major problem with literacy levels in Irish education. People leaving school in transition year and not going on to do fifth or sixth year might be suitable for the vocational training programme at leaving certificate level, some kind of skills programme or even getting into a trade. I see from my work, and I want to hear from the representatives as experts in their field, the massive gap in career guidance and matching people to putative jobs.

As a Government backbencher I know that nobody likes to take money out of anybody's pockets. This is an extremely difficult time and as the Chairman has always said, this is a good working committee. We would love to give out the money and do much more in education, training and upskilling in terms of jobs but the representatives do not need me to tell them how difficult the situation is. I would be happy to hear their response to those two questions.

Senator Brendan Ryan

I thank the EAPN team for their presentation. The timing of this meeting just after a very difficult budget sets it up to some degree for Opposition parties to reopen the debate on the budget, which I do not intend to do. To some degree the representatives are commenting on a report that was produced in June, but things have got worse since then, probably as a result of the budget, and therefore it is a difficult time for this presentation.

I want to delve deeper into the presentation. On the suggestion about targeting the service sector — the representatives also included green technology. They said 85% of jobs in Dublin are in the service area. Does that not indicate a point of saturation? It might be more difficult to get from 85% to 90% than it might be from, say, 20% to 30% or 40%. I would be interested to hear their comments on that.

The representatives talked about maximising the potential of social employment. Is that just about more places or is there more to their thoughts than that?

The Chairman asked me to be brief. I had a number of other questions but this is my final one. In terms of their statement that employers must examine all options other than unemployment, do they mean short-time options? Do they believe that is not happening to the degree that it might or are employers taking advantage of the recession to let people go when they could possibly hold on to them on short-term contracts?

Chairman

I thank Senator Ryan for being so accommodating. I am sure Deputy Michael Fitzpatrick will be equally accommodating.

Deputy Michael Fitzpatrick

I always am, Chairman. The group did not outline to us general information on their organisation. They might do that later, as well as explaining the roles each of the representatives play in the organisation and the size of the organisation. I am looking for some background information. The presentation was satisfactory but I would like to have that information.

Mention was made of the role of the vocational education committees, FÁS and community groups but I would like to hear the representatives' views on properly qualified trainers. We have all these courses available but I would be somewhat concerned about the qualifications of the trainers. We must have people who are qualified to deliver the courses efficiently and in a timely manner.

I am not sure what the representatives meant when they said there were more places than it appeared and mentioned the fact that FÁS is shortening the length of courses. People in FÁS should be sufficiently qualified to be able to target the courses at the people who need them. They are short courses and perhaps all that is needed is a course that is for two or three days a week.

Regarding the social welfare reduction, in fairness to the Minister, she made the cut across the board and did not pick or choose, but the representatives seem to have a problem with that. I am not sure if they believe it would have been better if she had said that we would do away with the free transport for old age pensioners. All social welfare benefits are very important and I cannot identify any particular social welfare benefit that would not hurt many people if it were reduced. I would like to hear the representatives' views on the role of the VECs as a trade organisation and the FETAC qualifications people can acquire.

Deputy Morgan has left but he mentioned the number of schemes that have been removed from the books in the past week or so. I am involved in one in Kildare which is quite good and it has not been taken off the books. I know two more in Kildare as well. Those schemes are continuing. I do not know the reason some of them have been cut but I would say to people who have been taken off schemes that they have a short window of time to appeal. Those groups should be informed and should appeal.

Chairman

Three different sets of questions have been put to Mr. Ginnell.

Mr. Paul Ginnell

In terms of who we are as an organisation, I tried to cover that in some way at the beginning of the presentation but perhaps not in depth. We are a network of organisations with a focus on the issue of employment and people who are the most marginalised. There are 11 or 12 different national organisations who are part of the European Anti-Poverty Network employment working groups. We are not just one organisation. The European Anti-Poverty Network is a European network. We have a staff of approximately four in Ireland, and there is an office in Brussels and networks in different member states. We lobby a great deal in terms of the European employment strategy, which is the focus of where we bring this network together to lobby.

To take the question on social welfare cuts, and not wishing to reopen the budget debate, what I was trying to say in terms of the tax and social welfare areas is that there were other choices. It was not necessarily about cuts. A choice was made not to increase taxation a great deal but to focus instead on cuts. We would argue against that but I do not want to reopen that debate. We would say there were choices and those choices were not taken in terms of the budget.

Restraint was mentioned by a number of members. We are very disappointed and deflated. We spent a long time fighting against the cuts which finally came and people are very angry. We have been holding focus groups throughout the country to hear people's experiences, not necessarily because of these cuts but because of the overall experience of unemployment and living on very low incomes. Some people are struggling and will take any opportunity. Some people are experiencing depression in terms of struggling with the problems they are experiencing. In terms of the issues and how they affect people, people are angry and deflated that this is what has come to pass.

Mr. Philip O’Connor

Neither I nor Ms O'Brien work with the APN. I work with Dublin Employment Pact and Bríd is with the INOU, but we work together on policy issues relating to employment. We bring together expertise from different types of organisation to lobby about it.

Senator Ryan asked some questions which arose from my presentation. The point about the services sector is that people are not aware of its extent. Twenty years ago approximately 55% of the workforce in Dublin was working in services; now it is 85%. It is a very broad sector that covers everything from public services to internationally traded services. When employment support programmes are introduced, there is a tendency to make the subsidies available purely to the internationally traded manufacturing sector, which in Dublin comprises a very small part of the employed workforce. We are keen that options for retaining jobs, job placements or subsidies for maintaining positions also be available outside the traded manufacturing sector, and that the Government be aware of how important the services sector is for employment.

With regard to short-term employment and so forth, we are urging this. At present, less than 10% of firms in Ireland are involved in any type of short-term employment. We are encouraging people, especially opinion formers on all sides of the House, to urge employers always to look at all other options before making people redundant. That includes trying to share the work among their workforce and using the support programmes from the State to maintain people in short-term employment rather than letting them go. They should always consider those options first.

Deputy Fitzpatrick asked about the VEC. There has been a big change in the VEC in recent years in terms of being available to deliver training and education outside the school setting, be it in the workplace or on training courses. There is also the establishment of the national training register. That is supposed to function as a type of quality control. The only people who can work as tutors or trainers in these programmes must have been accepted onto the national register. There already has been such a huge expansion in the provision of training, partly in response to the crisis, that it is essential the register is vigorously supervised. Since the VECs became more flexible in the delivery of training they have been playing a very big role in this area. Recently, there was an agreement at national level between FÁS and the VECs to deliver courses such as the skills for work programmes, which are very basic literacy programmes. These are being delivered through the VEC system, involving VEC tutors and so forth. How effective that is varies significantly from county to county. It depends on the strength of the local VEC.

With regard to the FETAC system — this is relevant to what Deputy White was saying — there was a great deal of focus on trying to make third level universities and so forth more accessible to people from different social categories. However, a much more successful path has been the FETAC system. Hundreds of thousands of people have qualified through FETAC and often with more relevant skills and education. There was a problem for a while getting employers to accept it, but we are long past that stage. It is a system that actually works. Access to that type of modular training suits people who are not necessarily academically orientated and has been a means of ensuring quality in training provision both in the workplace and to unemployed people outside the formal education system.

Ms Bríd O’Brien

With regard to career guidance, it is not just career guidance in the VEC sense or the education sense. It is guidance whereby when somebody goes to FÁS, the VEC, the local social welfare office or the local employment service they can meet somebody who can sit down with them and discuss their options. The example of the car mechanic is not unique. Many people who have been sent on training courses through FÁS and the VEC have wished, halfway through, that they had gone someplace else. They might never have wanted to go on the course anyway but there is a requirement to send somebody on a training programme or somebody is concerned that enough people have not progressed. They are therefore progressed to where there is an opening rather than where they would like to be or where there might be a job tomorrow.

We are calling for some serious thinking within the education, training, employment and social welfare systems to ensure that the right person is put on the right course so that they ultimately end up in the right job. That is particularly important now, when there are limited resources and we must ensure that we are making the best use of them. I am concerned that we are not. We meet many people like the man mentioned who have had similar experiences. They were sent on a course that made no sense for them, while there might be somebody else who arrives the next day or week who would love to go on that course. We are trying to ensure that services understand and meet the needs of the person.

People should talk through their options with them and give them time to talk through those options. Recently, people have raised concerns that given how many people are now unemployed and given that systems are almost stretched to bursting point, there really is no time to have those discussions. It is crucial that they happen. Otherwise people do not get the right information or take the right option or even realise the options that exist for them. That is a crucial issue. There must be an overall vision of where we are going because not everybody will get a smart economy job. It sounds great and it would be wonderful if people could in terms of decent pay and conditions but, unfortunately, it is unlikely to happen. Where the other jobs will be and how we ensure that people will be able to access them is very important.

We can check out the literacy statistics. It is an issue that arises a great deal. My understanding is that Ireland will be participating in a survey to try to get information about it. There appears to be a problem getting access to hard data so we can assess whether progress is being made. Then there is the issue that in the Celtic tiger economy many people either left school early or found employment where not having literacy and numeracy skills at a certain level did not matter or they were able to manage. However, if we are aiming for a smart economy, people's levels of formal skills will have to be increased dramatically. This is an issue people raise regularly, both individually and organisationally, in terms of ensuring that these lifelong learning skills at all levels are incorporated into education, training and employment programmes so people do not find themselves stuck. We are concerned that many people coming out of the construction or retail sectors will find it difficult because they might have those issues, which must be resolved.

The numbers in community employment, CE, throughout the country have, by and large, been maintained. In last week's budget, an additional 500 places were announced. Additional places were announced in the previous budget as well. The difficulty is how it is being funded, which is through a reduction in the payment the CE participants will get. The materials and training grant is also under threat. Given that progression from CE continues to be an issue, it is really important that there is a good training grant associated with that programme if people are going to be able to progress into the types of job we wish, as a society, to create.

In terms of our being restrained, the Senator and Deputy who raised it have left the meeting. A meeting such as this is formal and a certain decorum is required, but there is a sense of exhaustion after having lobbied for months for the cuts not to happen only to discover that it has been done after all.

Now we need to regroup and we will be back. We are very concerned that, first, it happened and, second, it set a precedent. Tiredness is mixed with anger. It will be a growing anger, not only personally but also for other groups. It is a huge hit for people and particularly so close to Christmas.

Chairman

There is no doubt in my mind that the only real answer to poverty is the provision of jobs and, thus, the availability of employment for people. We have advocated allowances and subsidies, but the reality is that most people like to have a job and to be in a position to provide for themselves. That is the essential thing. They make extraordinary efforts to gain employment and to stay in work. As legislators and policy makers, that is our goal and I am sure it is the witnesses' goal as well. We must try to get around that. Our primary duty, responsibility and function is to facilitate this and ensure the opportunities are there for all. Everything is secondary to the issue of employment. We all set that goal, including those undertaking FETAC courses to gain the necessary experience. We should acknowledge that it is a magnificent achievement for somebody to take that route. It took a while for that to be acknowledged. The VECs must be complimented on their work in that regard because they have widened the participatory role. Maybe they are undervalued and are not focused on enough as regards the work that can be done. People with jobs can control their own destiny, which is very important. They can decide how to spend their money, although some of them are struggling to pay mortgages and educate their children. The presentation was instructive in that regard and provided useful feedback. Such groups are important in providing a counterbalance and an alternative voice. We may get carried away at a political level, but the witnesses are dealing with a different level at the coalface. They hear about many of the problems at focus groups and other such events.

I thank Mr. Paul Ginnell and I hope he gets home before the heavy traffic in Lucan. I also thank Ms Bríd O'Brien and I hope she recovers from her exhaustion. I have no doubt she will be in good voice again in mid-January when she returns. I also thank Mr. Philip O'Connor, who is working in Dublin. I thank the witnesses again for attending the committee to assist us in our deliberations. I know they were eager to come here and today was the last day on which we could accommodate them this year. I said we would have to get them in before the end of 2009 or I would be in trouble. No doubt they will be back next year. If there are any issues on which they want to focus, this committee has an open approach. We work together as a unit. Various views can be aired, but at the end of the day we try to get a consensus view that advances the cause. Our singular objective is to try to help unemployed people back into the workplace or back to education, which will give them an opportunity to participate in the workplace.

The joint committee went into private session at 3.25 p.m. and adjourned at 3.35 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 19 January 2010.