Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Yes. I apologise for spending so much time on that question, in particular. I welcome Mr. McKeon's statement that he may come back in on more specific detailed questions, so I am not going to ask many of them.

I would like to reflect on the crucial and fundamental principles and assumptions that are at work here. I am noting a fundamental issue and question that arises here. There is a role for employment activation and support and there is a role for social protection. I believe there would be a benefit from bringing those two roles closer together. That is very different from making one conditional on the other. The leap that has been made in this regard is different. It is a very different question when the idea of sanction comes in. The social protection payments we have, including jobseeker's allowance, are not designed simply as a reward for jobseeking. They are designed to ensure every citizen has a basic and appropriate level of income which protects them. It is important that we embed this conditional question. There is talk here of rights and responsibilities. Fundamentally, if we go back to the 1800s, we will find the laissez-fairemodel, which had problems, and we will find models that involved compulsory or targeted work. None of us is looking for any of these models to be adopted. We need to be saying that in a modern designed system, we must ensure the social protection component is never jeopardised. When we look at payment reduction, we are looking at compromising the well-being of the poorest people in the State.

It is important to reflect on the assumptions behind the current approach. There seems to be a core assumption that we need to emphasise the push factor among a certain cohort. The research we have seen, including the ESRI research from a couple of years ago, found that the vast majority of people want to work and are better off working. Even if they are not better off working, most unemployed people would choose work. This is the research. We are always told about disincentives to work, etc. The fundamental fact is that there is a large cohort of people who really want to work. There is a focus on the push dynamic, rather than the pull dynamic of supports and engagement. I realise that work has been done on pull factors as well. I recognise that there have been absolute improvements in Intreo offices, in experiences and in times. I believe those pull factors are being undermined by a strong perception that supports cannot be accessed without sanction. I am just saying that this is a very strong perception. There are some people who do not engage with the jobseeker system because they are afraid of some of the conditions.

The question of availability has been mentioned. Full-time availability is still a core component even though we know that people in a huge cohort of society have part-time availability. That does not necessarily mean availability at a casual or low-skilled level. Some people have high-quality part-time availability. The system takes an "all of nothing" approach at the moment. It considers that people are either available full-time or they are not available at all. There has been some waiving of this requirement, for example involving people on the jobseeker's transitional payment. There has not been a recognition of the value of building labour market attachment. For example, people may move in and out of the labour market at various stages of their lives. Somebody who is available on a part-time basis now might become available on a full-time basis at a later stage. I think some of the outcomes we have seen from the education and community employment schemes that have been mentioned are linked to that too. Sometimes, people are sent on courses that are not suitable or they go on courses that are not suitable because they can manage the hours of those courses with their other responsibilities.

I am very concerned about the scepticism with regard to educational outcomes. I do not believe we can give up on the potential of citizens to achieve. It is not just a question of the numbers who end up in employment; it is also a question of the quality of the employment they end up in. There is a fundamental principle of choice here. Engagement might be required. In some of the better systems, where sanction is used it is used only in the context of ensuring people are engaging. It is getting narrower here. It is not just a question of whether people are engaging; it is also a question of whether they are engaging with the list of options under Gateway, or with a specific list of courses. People are asked whether they have been engaging with something that fits the model of a certain company, having been referred by JobPath. One does not choose to refer to JobPath; one is referred to JobPath. What is the route back for somebody who says "I am sorry, I know you think I am going to end up in employment quicker if I take a six-month training course in assembly with a view to working in a factory, but I genuinely want to go back to do a college course and have a different outcome for my life"? That is fundamental. The choice issue is crucial.

The question of negative assumptions versus positive assumptions arises in this context. I think there is a huge issue associated with this assumption. We are losing out on a vast number of people who want to seek voluntary activation. I was concerned by the presentation in this respect. It is one thing to say what was done in the recession, and I appreciate that some good things and some bad things were done, but it is another thing to say that only at non-austerity or non-recession points in the cycle - in times of surplus - will we see whether we might provide activation supports. This assumption exists right across Europe, where the question of qualified adults is being considered. Thousands of qualified adults, who are predominantly women, might be interested in accessing voluntary supports and activation measures. Many groups, including people with disabilities, have been asking and begging in many cases for education and training opportunities and activation measures to enable them to return to the workforce. Are they are a backup force or reserve? Are they meant to sit aside for five or six years because the authorities are only prepared to work with people on the live register during recessionary periods? Every citizen should have the same supports. We need to keep it in focus that every time somebody enters a job, that is a positive outcome. I would be very concerned about anything that would suggest this as a pattern.

I am also concerned that it is not planned to start giving access to activation measures to these groups until 2018. I know the departmental officials will say there is always access. I had this discussion with them a few years ago. I would like this form of access to be prioritised and put in place.

It is set out from 2018 to 2020 but needs to be brought forward because people have been waiting for four or five years. Every person's life is precious and every person wants to live a full life. I am sorry if it sounds very philosophical, but we will come back with detailed questions and the specifics of courses.

It is welcome that the new Indecon research on JobBridge is better than the previous research because of the control groups. It is, therefore, more valuable. Some of the proposals put forward by the Minister, as reported in the newspapers yesterday, are constructive. They are a start. We need to see more, but they are constructive. It is appropriate that there be an employer contribution, that it be time limited and that it be 30 hours rather than 40, giving people a period of time in which to seek other employment. These are positive steps and I am sure we will get a chance to look at the details of the scheme. I apologise for my lengthy intervention.