Ms Bríd O'Brien:

I was asked about sanctions and the feedback we get from people of all ages. In particular, I am mindful that some people may believe they have been directed onto an employment programme or an education and training programme. They may take the view that it is not for them or that it would not be of long-term benefit. In some cases, people take these programmes because they believe that if they do not, then they will be cut. We believe that is altogether negative for the person involved. Moreover, it means that others on the training programme might begin to wonder about it, especially if they are keen to be there. They might question whether it is a good decision. All of this creates a negative environment for everyone.

We believe sanctions should be an absolute last resort. The services need to engage with people as adults, work with them, examine the position people are in and examine what is available and what can be done. Several questions arise. Is it a case of having to develop better skills to find a job? Is it that people need to retrain or up-skill? It is a question of working with people to try to find the best option for them. Sanctions should be in the back of the drawer and only taken out when all else has failed.

Again, it goes back to the capacity and wherewithal of staff in offices. Some people will take the approach of engaging with the person, but others will take the approach that they are sending the person to a particular place but he or she will not go. Some of it comes down to the capacity of staff.

Another issue may be how messages from the top have been heard. It struck us when all of the changes were happening that fraud control was put in the driving seat and everything else was put to the back. For the employment service to really work well, the car needs to go one way, but from a fraud control perspective the car needs to go another way. This creates tension for the Department. The Department absorbed the national employment service, and one engages with people very differently when providing such a service than if the starting point is to ask whether someone is entitled to something. There are two different dynamics. We feel if we develop the dynamic of engaging people well some of the issues should be addressed before they arise. This is very important.

We have had a variety of feedback on JobPath. Some people did not welcome being referred to something of which they were not aware and wondered why it happened. There have been instances where a referral happened centrally but somebody had started to do something locally. Tension will arise between local services, including the Department's services, and national referral. In some cases where somebody may have started down the road to something else they have been facilitated to do so, but in other cases this has not arisen. Some people do not appreciate work supports. Where people feel they got the job themselves they are concerned that if the employer is contacted, it will have a negative impact.

Over the years we received feedback from people who stated they did not like how the local social welfare offices used to be, with staff on the other side of the glass, but now some people do not like the open plan offices of JobPath. It is about people feeling they can opt in. We have raised this with JobPath providers, with regard to providing an option of meeting people in a small room, but we must make sure people are aware of this. People have a fear that somebody else will hear their business. Some of the issues arose because the initial cohort referred seemed to be of a particular age group. We are conscious many of the staff in JobPath seem to be younger and there definitely was an intergenerational prang in some offices. Some people went in the door and wondered how this young person would tell them how to find a job. These are some of the concerns people have raised with us.

People may not be sure how long employment will last, even those who know they will get paid at the end of the month. If all people have is a weekly social welfare payment and they are facing three or four weeks of no income, food still needs to be put on the table. The supplementary welfare system is a mechanism within the system that could be used better. A difficulty arose when the Department absorbed the FÁS employment services and also pulled back into itself the supplementary welfare system. Something that struck us with regard to this system was that often in the past when an initial decision about a payment entitlement was made, we were able to get some income through the supplementary welfare system. Access to this has certainly dropped quite dramatically, as have exceptional needs payment supports. Serious income issues and huge difficulties arise for people who may not fit neatly into a particular box. It is a mechanism that exists but if people are not aware of it, it is hard to find. For a long period of time the system has been run on the premise that if people did not already know something, nobody would tell them. If we are to make all of the changes that have happened work well, the system needs to become more proactive in telling people about the range of supports available.

This is a very practical measure that can make a huge difference to people. It may allow them to have some payment for an extended period. It is a small investment, particularly if a person gets a job and stays in it. One month's additional payment could make a huge difference. It is already there in the system but could be used to better effect to help people. Sometimes, there is an element of fear. People might not have worked for a long time. They are going from the security of an income they know - they know how far they can stretch it - to a situation in which they are not fully sure how it will work out. It is a new experience for people. It is a small practical step that could make a big difference for people. The Department is ensuring everybody knows everything, rather than assuming people already know, when many people do not.