Vol. 946 No. 2
36. Deputy Willie O'Dea asked the Minister for Social Protection the future of the Money Advice and Budgeting Service and the Citizens Information service in view of a motion in Dáil Éireann requesting the restructuring of these services be halted to allow for meaningful engagement on this issue from all relevant stakeholders; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18239/17]
As the Minister will be aware, we debated a motion in the Dáil recently on the question of citizens information centres and MABS. I just want to ascertain what the position is now.
I am assured by the Citizens Information Board that its decision to restructure the governance arrangements of its delivery partners will not impact negatively on the front-line services they provide. The changes will be at board level only and no closures or changes will occur at local delivery points. In fact, the ultimate aim of the board is to improve and expand the local delivery of services. The restructuring will allow the board to improve the effectiveness, efficiency and responsiveness of its partnered services and to redirect valuable resources away from back-end administrative processes to front-line service delivery for customers.
The board fully acknowledge the tremendous contributions that members of local boards have made to the development of Citizens Information service and MABS companies over the years and appreciates that some of these individuals are keen to continue playing an active role. In recognition of this, and to continue to encourage this ethos, the Citizens Information Board plans to set up local advisory groups. In addition, current local board members will be able to go forward for selection as members of the new regional boards.
The board has not taken this operational decision lightly. It comes after almost five years of extensive analysis of options and a detailed consultation process. I am satisfied that the board would not support changes that would be detrimental to the services provided locally or to the staff and volunteers working in those services. In any event, I am advised by the Attorney General that it would not be lawful or appropriate for me, as Minister, to direct the Citizens Information Board to halt the implementation of this operational decision. Furthermore, I am assured by the board that further meaningful consultation with all stakeholders will form part of the restructuring implementation process. I hope this clarifies the matter for the Deputy.
I thank the Minister for his response. His reply bore an uncanny resemblance to the reply to the Private Members' motion we submitted a few weeks ago. We have had the debate. People on all sides of the House expressed their opinions. The vast majority in the House believed the restructuring should not go ahead or at least should be halted pending further consultation and input from the people who will be affected most directly, namely, staff, volunteers and the people running the community information centres and MABS on the ground.
I take the Minister's point about the Attorney General's advice. I do not agree with it. My opinion is that it is entirely wrong but, nevertheless, one has to respect it when one gets it. Will the Minister elaborate on his remark indicating there will be further consultation with and input from the people involved on the ground? I am a little unclear about that.
Absolutely. I would like to allay the concerns of staff and volunteers in my discussions with the chairman of the board and the CEO. I have been assured on a number of occasions that all the local services and local offices will be protected, as will the positions of staff. I do not subscribe to the view that there has to be an independent company with its own board in every local area in order to have volunteers. The Deputy will be very familiar with Special Olympics Ireland, for example. It has considerable numbers of volunteers in many local areas but it is a single corporate entity with one company and one corporate board for the country.
The next step in the consultation and implementation of what the board is planning is to establish what is being called a restructuring implementation group. That will carry out the cost-benefit analysis which we spoke about previously and will also set about implementing the new 16-board model.
I agree with the Minister. We do not need a board in every parish in the country. We do not need 93 separate boards. Both organisations have told me that. They have stated that publicly. We are all on the one page in that regard.
The Minister states he is establishing a restructuring implementation committee. On the decision on 15 February last to go ahead with this restructuring, do I take it that it is full steam ahead despite what the volunteers tell us, despite what the users of the services who we all are supposed to be here to serve tell us and despite what those at the front line tell us? Can the Minister tell me who will be represented on the restructuring implementation committee? Will it include representatives of the two organisations presently operating the schemes, that is, Citizens Information and MABS?
I do not know what the composition of the board will be. It would certainly make sense to have representatives of those organisations on it and I can certainly convey that to the chairman.
I should say this is a decision of the Citizens Information Board, not a Government decision. There is a reason we have State boards, that is, so that some decisions can be made at arm's length. While I am happy to take responsibility for any decisions that fall into my statutory remit, where something is left to a board established by the Oireachtas to make a decision, I will stand by that board. If I were to countermand their decision or in some way order them to reverse it even if I had the legal authority to do so, that would be tantamount to expressing a lack of confidence in the board members and I do not. I have full confidence in them. I am sure they have considered this fully and have made this decision for the right reasons.
I have had discussions with the Chairman of the committee, Deputy Curran, and I understand the Oireachtas committee has held hearings and may put forward a set of alternative proposals. If those are reasonable and workable and perhaps present a way forward, I certainly will take a look at them and ask the board to consider them as well.
37. Deputy John Brady asked the Minister for Social Protection if his attention has been drawn to ongoing issues in the JobPath scheme; when the next review will be conducted; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18279/17]
Is the Minister aware of ongoing issues in the JobPath scheme and when does he intend to carry out a full review of the scheme from its introduction?
I am pleased to advise the Deputy that the experience of JobPath to date has been very positive.
The most recent unemployment figures from the CSO show that the monthly unemployment rate in March 2017 stands at 6.4%. This is a decrease from 8.3% in March 2016 and 9.9% in March 2015, which is a decline of 3.5 percentage points in the past year.
In addition, the CSO's quarterly national household survey reports that there were 2.048 million people in employment at the end of 2016. Employment increased by over 65,000 or 3.3% in the year to the fourth quarter of 2016 and by 2.3% the previous year.
My Department recently published the results of an independent customer satisfaction survey, which indicates that jobseekers feel that they are receiving a good service and that JobPath has improved their chances of securing employment.
Between 76% and 81% of customers were satisfied with the service provided and only between 5% and 8% expressed dissatisfaction. More than 90% of customers reported that JobPath staff made them feel valued and that they had a good relationship with their adviser. They also felt the service had improved their chances of getting a job.
An analysis of employment outcomes for JobPath participants shows they have a higher chance of securing and remaining in a job than participants with a similar duration of unemployment who were not referred to JobPath. Given that only a small number of people have completed their full engagement with the service, these results can only be treated as indicative at this stage. Nevertheless, they are encouraging. Should the Deputy wish to consider the matter in more detail, the results and a copy of the survey findings are available on the Department's website.
My Department will publish similar performance reports for each successive quarter as jobseekers complete their 12-month engagement period and the next set of results to be published in the coming weeks. In addition, my Department will have an econometric review of the JobPath service, which will commence later this year when participant numbers will have reached a sufficient level to support a robust review.
The emergence of JobPath signalled a drive towards a privatisation agenda within the Department for job activation schemes. Since 2011, penalties have been increasing year on year for those who do not engage in a job activation scheme. Between 2011 and 2016, more than 27,000 people were sanctioned. As the live register goes down, penalties go up. Is this a new policy within the Department?
Those engaged with JobPath cannot transfer to another scheme if they are offered a place, incur travel costs that are not reimbursed and are obliged to travel for up to 60 minutes to whatever job, and the Department's preference for JobPath is taking away from local employment services and CE schemes, which are suffering.
The priority for Turas Nua and Seetec is to make money. That is the bottom line. They do not care in what job they place a person; their objective is profit. Is it now a policy objective of the Department to give preference to JobPath ahead of all other schemes?
The preference of the Department absolutely is jobs first. The first thing we should try and get for somebody is a regular job as opposed to being on a scheme. A regular job is better paid, has the prospects of promotion and means that one is working and paying tax rather than being on a scheme, which means that the taxpayer has to pick up the bill and which will end. Of course, the preference is for a full-time job of more than 30 hours over a scheme. Absolutely, our policy is a regular, real job first. If somebody cannot get such a job, then he or she may well be suitable for supported employment with a scheme.
What we are doing is a customer satisfaction survey. That is done quarterly. The success rates are also published quarterly. One should bear in mind that success is being in a regular job of more than 30 hours a week, that is, a full-time job, and remaining in that job for more than 13 weeks - none of that stuff about part-time employment or unstable jobs - and we will do an econometric analysis this year.
I would point out though that this is a contract that runs until the end of 2019. We can have any review we like under the sun. The contract stands until the end of 2019 and then there is a two-year run-off period. Obviously, in 2018, this Government or the Government of the day will have to make a decision as to whether it wants to re-tender for a similar contract, not do it at all because unemployment might be extremely low by then or have a different type of contract, perhaps trying to activate different groups of people.
The only review that has been carried out so far was useless. The review relates to the first three months of the operation of JobPath, from July to September 2015. This review was not published until January of this year.
I am sure other Deputies have similar experiences of constituents coming through their doors outlining many concerns. That report is not a true reflection of the scheme and the jobs in which the scheme is placing jobseekers, the questionable quality of the jobs being sourced for jobseekers and how the vulnerable jobseekers are treated. What we have is two private companies making money on the back of jobseekers. We have no figures. We have no costs. We have no review. We have no idea of the impact the scheme is having on jobseekers or its success rate. We have a situation where JobPath will not engage with public representatives or deal with third-party queries in any way, which is a serious problem. The Minister stated there would be some sort of a review later in the year. It needs to be a root-and-branch review of the total operation of the scheme. I again ask the Minister whether that is something to which he will commit.
I have already told the Deputy what reviews are being done and I have also explained to him that the contract runs until the end of 2019 regardless of any reviews. We would only consider cancelling the contract if the contract was breached and it certainly has not been breached.
The customer satisfaction survey and the outcome results that show how many participants are moving into employment are published quarterly. The second quarterly report will be out in the next couple of weeks.
In terms of making money, it is important to bear in mind that these companies bore all of the start-up costs. Had the Department been obliged to set up that number of offices all around the country, it would have cost tens of millions of euro. The companies bore all the start-up costs and get paid by results.
It is a very good model from the point of view of taxpayers. They only get paid-----
Will the Minister release the figures?
Absolutely. I have already released figures.
We are informed that they are commercially sensitive.
They only get paid by results - the result being somebody taking up sustainable employment of more than 30 hours per week for which he or she is paid. They also only get paid if the person sustains the job for more than 13 weeks. That is a good model. If it is such a lucrative thing, I do not see the other groups signing up for payment by results. If payment by results is so lucrative, why are other providers, be it local employment or community employment schemes, not seeking to move to that model?
Will the Minister commit to releasing the figures?
38. Deputy Willie O'Dea asked the Minister for Social Protection the number of persons who have been subject to sanctions and penalties for non-engagement with employment and activation schemes or measures from 2014 to 2016, inclusive, and to date in 2017; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18240/17]
The question is self-explanatory. I am concerned about the connection between the activation systems that are in place and compulsion. Rather than having a link between both, they appear to be two sides of the same coin. That is the reason I asked for the figures.
My Department is committed, under Pathways to Work, to incentivise the take-up of activation and job opportunities, including implementing sanctions for failure to engage with the activation process. The Social Welfare Act 2010, enacted in December of that year, provided for the introduction of reduced rates of payment to people who did not engage with the State’s employment services. Reduced rates of payment are a means of encouraging jobseekers to engage with activation measures and to take advantage of the supports offered by the Department to co-assist them in securing employment. Reduced rates are only applied where a jobseeker fails to engage as requested - and following at least two warnings - with the Department’s employment services.
There are long-standing and separate, unrelated sanctions to deal with failure by a jobseeker to comply with and satisfy the qualifying conditions relating to the jobseeker scheme. Those conditions are being available for and genuinely seeking work. A range of sanctions, including a full payment suspension or disallowance of the jobseeker claim, can be applied in circumstances where this condition is not met. In the interests of natural justice, a jobseeker who fails to participate in the activation process is given both written and verbal warnings and an opportunity to comply before a reduced rate of payment is applied. Furthermore, jobseekers can, through co-operation with the activation service of my Department, benefit from early re-instatement of the full rate of jobseeker’s payment.
The legislation underpinning the application of reduced rates of payment is the Social Welfare Act 2010. All decisions on the application of reduced rates of payment are made by deciding officers of the Department and are based on all the available evidence and the circumstances of each case. The jobseeker can appeal the decision through the social welfare appeals office. The number of cases where reduced rates have been applied is detailed in the table I have provided. Typically, reduced rates tend to last for a relatively limited duration of only a few weeks and at any given time approximately 1,200 jobseekers are on a reduced rate of payment. This number must be viewed against the approximately 300,000 people who are subject to activation in a given year and come within the scope of the reduced rate provisions of the 2010 Act. At any given time, it might be 0.4% of jobseekers who face reduced payments.
|
Year |
No. of Penalty Rates Applied |
|
2014 |
5,325 |
|
2015 |
6,743 |
|
2016 |
10,867 |
|
2017 to end March |
2,960 |
|
Total |
25,895 |
The figures available to me indicate that in 2011, 359 people were subject to sanctions and penalties for non-engagement with employment and activation schemes. That trebled to 1,519 in 2012, it reached almost 3,400 in 2013, 5,325 in 2014, 6,743 in 2015 and from January to December 2016 it rose to 10,428. That is an increase of 2,300% in five years. All of this has happened while unemployment has been falling, so the percentage of jobseekers who have been subjected to sanctions has increased by perhaps twice as much as 2,300% since 2011. I acknowledge that there must be sanctions in some cases, but it appears that people are being forced into low-paid, insecure jobs that do suit them. They are jobs in which they end up worse off as a result of having to travel to work and so forth. I have encountered people who were forced to undertake training and education courses in which they have absolutely no interest and which they never intend to use. If they do not undertake them, they will be penalised. We have made many recommendations to the Minister on this. An activation service is not a sanctions regime. While there must be sanctions, there surely must be some controls to ensure that people are not forced, for the benefit of employers, into low-paid jobs or into education and training courses that are not suitable for them.
Even at a time of relatively low unemployment, there are still 300,000 people who come on and off the live register in a given year. Of those, perhaps 10,000 might be subjected to reduced payments. It is a very small percentage of people who have their payments reduced. It is not as if it is 10% or even 5%. It is considerably less than that, so it is important to bear that in mind. There are two reasons that there has been an increase in the frequency with which penalty rates have been applied, and there has been an increase. First, this provision only commenced in 2010 when it was introduced by the then Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív, in the Act to which I referred earlier. It was always going to start off at a lower point than where it ended. The second reason is that there is far more one-to-one engagement. When there was a large number of jobseekers, and Intreo had not yet been established and JobPath had not been contracted, there was little one-to-one engagement. Now, it is far more common so there has been an increase in the number of those sanctioned. I do not anticipate the number escalating much further. It will probably stabilise this year in the 10,000 to 12,000 range.
It might only be a small percentage of the overall number of jobseekers, but the numbers have still increased quite dramatically. It is a sword of Damocles that hangs over the head of every jobseeker in the country. Has the Minister carried out an assessment of the impact the sanctions have on compliance and employment? Has he assessed the quality and sustainability of the type of employment being offered? Has he put safeguards in place, or is he considering putting them in place, to mitigate the impact that sanctions might have on households where there are children, for example, or those considered to be vulnerable?
There are safeguards already. Under the previous regime, one's payments were stopped altogether if one was determined not to be genuinely seeking work. Under this regime, payments are only reduced by a certain amount and the payment in respect of a child is never reduced, nor is the payment in respect of a qualified adult. The secondary payments, such as the fuel allowance, are not affected. It is only the payment to the main person in the household of a jobseeker that is reduced, not the child or dependent adult payments or the secondary payments. However, I intend to examine, for my own interest as much as anything else, a breakdown or profile of the reasons for sanctions and of the people who have had sanctions applied to them. I have asked for that but I do not have it yet.
39. Deputy John Brady asked the Minister for Social Protection his plans to end inequalities in the State pension payment for women as a result of the 2012 changes and the calculation of contributions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18280/17]
What plans does the Minister have to end the ongoing discrimination imposed on women in their State pension payments as a direct result of changes made by his party in 2012? What will he do to make the calculation methods for contributions fair for those individuals?
The average pensions paid by my Department to men and women over 66 years of age are within 2% of each other. This is reflected in the consistent poverty figures for people over 65 years of age, which show 2.6% of women and 2.9% of men experience consistent poverty, which, effectively, is parity. In fact, men are slightly more at risk of poverty in old age than women.
The current rate bands applying to the State contributory pension were introduced from September 2012 by the then Minister, Deputy Burton, replacing previous rates introduced in 2000. These more accurately reflect the social insurance contributions history of a person. Alternative payments are available for those with little or no means. It is estimated that to revert to the previous bands would cost at least €60 million in 2018, €70 million in 2019, €80 million in 2020, €90 million in 2021 and so forth - an increase of €10 million each year. The main beneficiaries from such a decision would be better-off pensioners who do not qualify for means-tested pension payments and who did not make sufficient contributions to the Social Insurance Fund during their working years to qualify for a full-rate contributory pension, so such a change would increase inequality. I am informed that 57.8% of those affected by the changes in 2012 are women. However, 54.4% of people over 66 years of age are women, so the gap in this regard between men and women is only 3.4%.
The contributory State pension is an entitlement built up through PRSI contributions, and is not impacted on by the means of the pensioner.
The principle of the contributory State pension is that people will receive a fair return for the contributions they have made to the Social Insurance Fund by paying PRSI during their working life. Generally speaking, those with a stronger attachment to the workforce, who have paid more into the Social Insurance Fund over a sustained period, are paid a higher pension than those with fewer or more intermittent contributions during their working life.
To date, 36,000 older people are in receipt of a lower State pension payment than would have been the case prior to the band changes as a direct result of the changes introduced by the Government, of which the Minister was a part, in 2012. I commend Age Action Ireland on highlighting that in an excellent and very detailed report which it recently launched.
The Minister constantly points to the homemaker's scheme as some sort of saviour for women in ensuring they are not discriminated against for taking a caring role at home. The homemaker's scheme only applies to periods of care from 1994 onwards. The Minister acknowledges women in caring roles after 1994 but anyone who cared for someone before that is totally disregarded. Is that fair in the eyes of the Minister? Is it fair that the pensions system is punishing women for taking time out of the workforce to raise a family?
I did not mention the homemaker's scheme at all.
The Minister does constantly. He mentioned it previously.
Perhaps the person who writes Deputy Brady's scripts might give him option A, B and C and suggest that if the Minister says this he should use option A, for example.
The Minister should do his job and answer the question.
The Minister should be allowed to speak without interruption.
I am not sure which policy office prepares Deputy Brady's scripts - the one in Dublin or the one in Belfast - but he should ask for a few different options so that his supplementary questions might follow on from something I said.
The Minister might start implementing stuff here as opposed to it being imposed on him.
There are different types of pension. There is the State pension, non-contributory, which is means tested and it is based on one's means; and there is the State pension, contributory, which is based on how much one paid into the Social Insurance Fund. It is very similar to occupational pensions that are paid to public servants and to the pension Deputy Brady will get paid for his service as a Deputy. The number of years one works and pays in results in the number of years in which one gets a payment and I think that is fair.
I will not take lectures from the Minister as to who writes my speeches or dictates my policy. My party members dictate my party's policies. I question where the Minister gets his right-wing policies from. The simple fact of the matter is that since 2012, one third of new applicants for the State pension have received smaller pensions than they would have received had they retired prior to 2012. Last December Sinn Féin introduced a motion to address the issue. The Minister might remember that because he and his party opposed it. The motion called for a reversal in the band changes and for the widening gender pension gap to be tackled. It is quite obvious that the Minister does not wish to narrow the pension gap nor to see equality for women. He is quite happy to preside over the current system. His reply to my question alludes to that. Ultimately, the message coming from the Minister today and previously to the 36,000 older people in receipt of a greatly reduced pension is "tough". That is shameful. Perhaps the Minister would address that issue.
I certainly do want to see the gender pension gap reduce and it is reducing. In 2014 the gap was 32%, which is a fall of 5% on two years previously, and the gap is lower than it is in the EU, which is 39%; in the Netherlands it is 40% and in Germany it is 48%. We anticipate that the gap will fall. The best way to ensure the gender pension gap continues to fall is to increase the number of people contributing to an occupational pension or to a State pension. I have proposals to do exactly that. The solution is not the solution proposed by Deputy Brady, which is just to lob another bill on the general taxpayer, to say to those who pay for everything and who pay all the taxes that they must pay some more. That is not the solution. The way contributory and occupational pensions work is that people pay into them and because of that they get a pension return. We need more people starting earlier, paying into their pensions and paying in enough to make sure they get a decent pension. That is how we get good outcomes for people. Suggesting that somehow we can just indefinitely add to the taxpayers' bill every time there is a problem is not good policy and it is not sustainable.
So it is a good outcome for the 36,000 older people.
40. Deputy Willie Penrose asked the Minister for Social Protection if he will amend the qualifying criteria for eligibility to participate on community employment and Tús schemes and in particular, the length of time a person has to be in receipt of a qualifying social welfare payment. [18238/17]
I am sure the Minister is aware that community employment, CE, and Tús schemes provide communities across the State with a deep network of services. They have always acted where State provision has not been fully accessible to communities and are, in effect, part of the State machinery in looking after some of the most vulnerable communities in the country. Many non-profit organisations, charities and community groups are heavily reliant on CE staff. It is in that context I call on the Minister to relax the eligibility criteria to ensure that more schemes could be sustained, given that it is more difficult for them to get suitable applicants to ensure the tremendous work in communities continues.
As the economic recovery takes hold and the overall level of unemployment continues to fall, the need to adapt employment programmes such as community employment and Tús to the changing circumstances, opportunities and the needs of jobseekers has become more apparent and urgent. With this in mind, my Department undertook an analysis of CE, which also looked at other employment programmes associated with it such as Tús. The report, which was recently approved by Government and which I published last Friday, made a number of recommendations on the operation of these schemes.
The changes I am introducing will see the general qualifying age for CE reduced from 25 to 21 years, thus allowing more younger people to take part in CE schemes and it will be easier for previous participants to re-enter a scheme for another year as the baseline year is being moved from 2000 to 2007. The changes widen the range of people who can take part in CE and that will improve the availability of people for the schemes.
However, the length of time a person must be in receipt of a social welfare payment to qualify for CE or Tús remains at 12 months and I have no plans to change that. That ensures a person who becomes unemployed is, in the first instance, provided with the one-to-one intensive activation support of a case officer to try to find regular employment for them before being considered for a placement on an employment programme. We want people to get into work first or education and training ahead of a scheme. We also want to ensure that the focus of these schemes continues to be on the long-term unemployed, those who are not able to find jobs.
The Deputy should note that the overall number of scheme places available in 2017 is 32,000. CE will continue to be the largest programme with 22,400 places in almost 1,000 schemes across the country. The balance will be made up of placements in schemes such as the rural social scheme, RSS, and Tús.
As part of the implementation of the new measures, my Department will consult with key stakeholders in the coming weeks about the implementation of the new arrangements which will commence thereafter. I have also signalled my intention to make a decision on relaxing the rules for people over 55 who are long-term unemployed and I will make a decision on that in the next three months.
I am pleased my question triggered some response from the Minister and his Department because I tabled a question last Wednesday and lo and behold, last Friday it all came tumbling out. I am very pleased I played a role in that regard, along with some of my colleagues who are present. So be it.
It is vital that people over 55, in particular those who use the schemes as a form of rehabilitation, are allowed to continue on schemes. There is nothing to stop that. It is all right talking about work but in rural areas in particular, one might not even have transport to get to work.
There should be a change in the Tús scheme in terms of providing materials grants and educational and training opportunities. Does the Minister still plan to reduce the number of places on community employment and Tús schemes when he links them to the live register, as he outlined in his reply? Would that not imperil the provision of community services? In terms of his future plans for CE and Tús schemes, does the Minister intend to reduce the number of places in 2018? When the Minister starts to talk to bureaucrats they will certainly urge him to do so. Does the Minister have plans to increase the materials or training grants received by CE schemes? That would be very important. In addition, does he have plans to incentivise those in receipt of disability allowance to take up places on CE schemes? That would be a very important avenue of participation.
I would very much like to increase the materials and training grant and to increase the €22.50 top-up paid to participants in the schemes.
However, these are budgetary matters and I am sure there will be competing priorities for the budget this autumn, as is always the case. They will certainly be on my ask list. I cannot guarantee that I will be able to deliver on them, but I will certainly try to do so.
During the recession, there was a major increase in the numbers on schemes. The CE scheme increased in numbers, while Tús, Gateway and JobBridge added to that. Logically, as the economy recovers, the numbers are being reduced. JobBridge is closed to new entrants and Gateway is being phased out. CE will be protected because of the important service provision role it plays. We are providing for 22,400 places to be funded this year. At present, we are slightly below that, at 22,356, so there is room for a small addition. In the medium term, we intend to link the numbers to the live register. As a result and as the numbers on the live register increase, there will be more places. As the numbers decrease, there will be fewer places. I think that makes sense.
Is an instruction in place from the Minister's Department that requires mandatory placement of long-term unemployed individuals with private companies? Are they prevented from participating in CE schemes if suitable vacancies arise when they are engaging in JobPath? JobPath is nothing short of legalised bullying. It is time to stop that. If people want to move to CE schemes that are more advantageous, they should not be dumped into offices or put into one-to-one schemes where they learn nothing. It is time to call those boys off and terminate that contract. We might have been a party to bringing it in, but we should dump it now because it is nonsense. I am sick of it. The most complaints I, as my party's spokesperson on social welfare, received were about that scheme. The Minister would not believe how many complaints I received.
It has come to my attention that Intreo places greater emphasis on helping recipients into the JobPath programme, often without mentioning the potential of CE schemes for them. Is that a policy within the Department?
The way it works is that anyone who has a start date for a CE scheme - and if that start date is within four weeks - can take that up ahead of any referral to a job provider such as Turas Nua or Seetec. The Department's policy is one of work and jobs first. We want to get people into regular employment and reserve places on employment programmes like CE and Tús for those who are unable to gain such employment. The initial work we want to do with people in the first year or so, whether it is done through Intreo or Seetec, is to assist them into full-time paid employment. If that is not successful after a year or so, they are then very good candidates for CE schemes, Tús schemes or other programmes. That is very much the policy and I think it makes sense.
Although I have seen many such cases, I do not want to see people who have been on the live register for years only wanting to take part in CE schemes all of a sudden when they are referred to JobPath, although they had an opportunity to do CE schemes years earlier. We cannot have people chopping and changing between different programmes and schemes. Once a person is on one scheme, he or she remains on it until such time as it finishes.
