Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 13 February 2008
108 Deputy Jan O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs his plans to merge the employment support service of FÁS with his own Department to allow for better coordination of welfare to work services. [5234/08]
View answerI have no plans to merge the employment support services of FÁS with my Department. My focus is to work with FÁS to complement its work on behalf of people on social welfare payments. A high degree of co-operation and co-ordination exists between the Department and FÁS at policy and operational levels. Both sides operate under a memorandum of understanding that is updated periodically and currently under review. Senior officials of the Department hold regular joint meetings with FÁS and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. There are also regular meetings between officials of my Department and FÁS at regional and local levels.
The Department works closely with FÁS in providing opportunities for people on social welfare to access the range of training and employment services afforded by that organisation. An important area of this co-operation is in respect of the joint national employment action plan whereby people are referred to FÁS when they have been on the live register for three months. Provision has also been made in the national development plan for a social and economic participation programme aimed at all people of working age regardless of the circumstances that led them to require income maintenance. The programme builds on the Department's existing experience and relationship with the people concerned in co-operation with other relevant service providers, such as FÁS, VECs, the HSE and other local agencies.
The vision is of a single transparent system with a primary focus on the customer and a route map starting at the first point of engagement with the Department. A disability employment project will commence this year under the European Social Fund. This will involve the Department working with FÁS and other agencies to support people with disabilities in reaching their potential. I am satisfied that the existing arrangements with FÁS, together with the supporting activation measures undertaken by the Department, ensure that the social and economic progression of those most marginalised are being adequately addressed.
I told the Minister I believe there is a strong case for merging the income support and employment support services, which is the tendency in many OECD countries. I ask that the Minister keep an open mind in this regard and consider it for the future.
Has the memorandum of understanding shared by the Department and FÁS achieved the desired outcome? The Minister stated it is under review, but when was the last time it was updated?
Regarding the Deputy's last point, I do not appear to have the date in the notes before me. In fairness to people in both Departments, FÁS has transformed itself dramatically in the past ten years. I find myself involved with FÁS a lot, particularly in the south-east region and I have met many of the people involved. The Irish economy faces competition when it comes to job creation from other economies, such as the Asian economy, specifically China, and low-wage economies, and this challenges us to examine the remit of both organisations in terms of the type of training provided. It is important to marry the type of training available to the jobs that will be available in the marketplace and this will form part of the review.
I understand the Deputy's point regarding income supports and employment supports provided by my Department — the system has been separated in Ireland but my mind is not closed to putting them together. The Department of Social and Family Affairs is focused on providing income supports in many areas. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, with its agencies, such as FÁS, is the driver when it comes to providing employment. Merging the two issues would require a huge policy shift, which would be a substantial undertaking. I have no plans to do this at the moment but I would consider it if evidence from international sources suggested it could be of significant benefit.
The heart of the Deputy's point relates to getting the best from resources coming from my Department and the agencies that can help deliver results. I would have thought this depends on good, close working relationships, regardless of the name over the door.
The Minister's answers and meetings with his officials suggest he would prefer if his department could just write cheques and forget about its other responsibilities. The Minister's approach shows a lack of cohesion, as did his answer on fuel poverty. Previously he suggested the habitual residence clause was a matter for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. There is no holistic view on this.
Going back to proposals on one-parent families and so on, has the Minister had discussions with FÁS regarding a greater degree of flexibility in training programmes. This may be a matter for a different Department but if the Minister wants to introduce his proposals on lone parents there is a need for greater flexibility. The hours FÁS training centres operate will not suit many parents and I wonder whether he has covered this in his discussions.
I am sure all Members of this House have many constituents who visit their clinics and express the huge difficulties faced by individuals and families seeking to move from social welfare to work. Does the Minister accept that a relatively low cost measure, such as extending the period of validity of the medical card for people moving from welfare to work, could be of benefit to the economy and is worth considering? Rent supplement is another huge issue in this regard. Measures in these areas could initially be expensive but the long-term benefit to the State of people no longer receiving welfare payments and becoming net contributors to society, rather than a burden on the economy, would be great.
On Deputy Enright's point, my Department has not been passive, rather it has been central to bringing about many changes. The Department's remit has changed substantially in recent years and it has proactively engaged with FÁS and other agencies. The Department of Social and Family Affairs has led the way rather than sit back and simply send out cheques. I spoke to many people in the Department who are engaged in getting the personnel to help change lives on a case by case basis. The more one-to-one engagement there is, the more one can facilitate people in accessing the workforce and making a valuable contribution to society. One-to-one engagement also improves the well-being of individuals.
On Deputy Morgan's point, as part of shaping the lone parent issue for the future, the Department is trying to remove the penalties people perceive in leaving welfare and joining the workforce. These perceptions have presented substantial problems but changes have been made in this area in recent years. There is still some way to go and I want to ensure that people in the poverty trap can escape it without immediately losing the supports the State provides. This will be critical if we are to move the number of people Deputy Shortall suggests is necessary from the welfare system to employment. I agree with the Deputy on this point.
Does the Minister accept that the only way there will be a client-centred approach is through institutional reform? The emphasis should be on clients, whether they have income support needs at a particular time, education needs or employment needs. These responsibilities should not be divided between various Departments. One need only see the institutional reform that has taken place at the Department for Work and Pensions in the UK to understand that we must move in that direction.
The numbers speak for themselves as three years ago almost 10,000 people were placed in employment by FÁS, while last year that figure fell to 7,000 and that is not an adequate level of performance. The only way to tackle this problem is to bring such services within the remit of the Department of Social and Family Affairs.
As I said to the Deputy, I do not feel the name over the door is important but rather the outcome. In some cases I would like to see better outcomes than are evident at present, but this matter is not about the system. I have always felt that in public life the system can take precedence over facilitating the customer. I believe that the people I have met at the Department are focused on facilitating individuals in returning to work, both part time and full time, through education and by addressing literacy problems and dealing with child care issues. Many people in the Department have made a great personal commitment that has little to do with the system. If we can enhance the system by doing some of the things the Deputy suggested in the coming years, why not do so?
