Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 12 May 1999

Vol. 504 No. 5

Other Questions. - Jobs Initiative.

Nora Owen

Ceist:

25 Mrs. Owen asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the status of the thousand or so people on the whole-time jobs initiative whose three year contracts will finish in December 1999; if she will extend the time these people are allowed to be on this scheme in view of the fact that in order to qualify one must be over 35 years of age and the chances of employment at a later age are less for this group of people; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [12256/99]

Nora Owen

Ceist:

84 Mrs. Owen asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment the status of the thousand or so people on the whole-time jobs initiative whose three year contracts will finish in December 1999; if she will extend the time these people are allowed to be on this scheme in view of the fact that in order to qualify one must be over 35 years of age and the chances of employment at a later age are less for this group of people; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [12350/99]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 25 and 84 together.

The job initiative is a work reintegration programme targeted at the very long-term unemployed, persons on the live register for five years or more and aged 35 years or over. Job initiative participants have access to three years temporary employment. The budget added an additional 875 places to the job initiative provision, bringing the total number of places available under the initiative to 2,875.

The first 1,000 job initiative participants are in the third and final year of their programme. An independent review of the pilot programme is being commissioned and any policy decisions regarding the future of the programme will be deferred until this report is to hand, which should be by June this year.

On the question of a further extension for the current participants, I have to stress that the fundamental objective of the programme is to facilitate their reintegration into the open labour market. As a general principle, it would not be fair to other very long-term unemployed persons who might avail of the programme.

On the positive side, I understand that a number of participants have already left the programme prior to completing three years in order to take up jobs. This is an encouraging sign of the programme's efficacy and of the motivation of participants. On the basis of experience gained a significant number of participants should be able to get jobs in the open labour market on completion of the programme and FÁS will provide progression advice and support to all participants in the lead up to completion. The managing agents for the job initiative have particular obligations in this regard also. I accept however that there may be some participants who face particular problems in taking this final step and can assure the Deputy that we will seek to deal with such cases in a sympathetic way.

Does the Tánaiste agree that of all the schemes with time limits, this scheme for people over 35 is one that should be allowed to continue beyond the three year period? It is logical to have time limits for some schemes but does she realise that many people are well over 35 when they take up this scheme after many years of unemployment? If this scheme cuts off they will return to the live register, where they have no chance at 45 or 50 of getting a job. Does the Tánaiste agree that it is essential that there be some leeway to allow these schemes to go further due to the age of its participants?

Yes, I agree with Deputy Owen. We should have flexibility and one is talking about a hard core of people who have been unemployed for five years and are over 35. There are fewer of them than there were, but there is a sufficient number for special and targeted responses. As I said, some people left before the three years were up and people are at different stages. This is the kind of programme under which we need to look at people almost on an individual basis. If there are people who are not ready for a job in the labour market or an alternative training programme, then we need some degree of flexibility. On the other hand, there may also be people waiting to get into the programme. It may be a question of switching some places in this direction so that we have sufficient places, within reason, for the numbers who wish to access places in this programme.

Deputy Owen is right. This is probably the most successful programme for long-term unemployed people. These are people who find it impossible to get a job, or even an interview, by virtue of their age. Unfortunately, in today's environment, 35 is elderly. That seems astonishing but it is the reality and we need flexibility.

I have some affection for this programme as I had more than a little influence in translating it from an idea into practice. Is it not the case that almost 3,000 members of the most vulnerable group in society, some of whom were unemployed for much longer than five years and are over 35, from November to February, will be in a situation—

Brevity, please, Deputy. We have very limited time due to a change in Standing Orders.

The point is that almost 3,000 people will find themselves out of work between November and February. That is a huge number of the people in the category to which we are referring, and they cannot get answers as to what will happen to them after that. Are any special measures being taken to track how many of them are finding jobs in the economy proper, and what will happen to the people who will reach a dead end when the scheme finishes?

Deputy Rabbitte is right. I met some people who had been unemployed for more than 12 years, though five years was the minimum period of unemployment and 35 the minimum age. Many people on the scheme had been unemployed for much longer than five years and the longer the period of unemployment and the older they are, the more difficult it is. FÁS has been asked to ensure that the participants can progress either to a job or another training programme. However, we will have to deal with this on the basis of facts, as we are now progressing on the basis of hunches and our own experiences of individual cases. That is why I have asked Deloitte & Touche to complete a report analysing the effect of this by the end of June, well in advance of when the first programme is to finish. I assume they will interview groups of people to assess the effect of this programme with a view to making recommendations. I assure Deputies that no change will be made without—

Does the Tánaiste feel Deloitte & Touche are suitable—

Please, Deputy Rabbitte. I ask the Minister not to answer as the time has expired.

Are they sensitive enough?

Barr
Roinn