Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank Dr. Sweeney. It was a really interesting presentation. I have almost a network of questions so potentially I will come back again. I found a number of key points. To pick up on what my colleague, Senator Humphreys, said in terms of decisions being made in the shorter period versus the longer period of analysis, the key thing for all of us and for everybody on the political side is to be willing to admit that something did not work, to be able to change strategy and to acknowledge that. That is something we are beginning to see around the area of lone parents, where maybe there needs to be an evaluation of policy. That is something else we have been discussing. It is that question of being able to look at the outcomes and to be honest and open enough to be able to change direction. I think we can all do that.

Regarding some of Dr. Sweeney's points and the counterfactual impact evaluation, I would be interested to know to what extent Dr. Sweeney feels the balance is or is not being struck at the moment between quantitative and qualitative analysis. He spoke very strongly and very clearly about the issue of quality. To what extent is the quality of outcome for the individuals in the various schemes being captured in the counterfactual impact evaluation at the moment? On the add-on effects, for example, in the case of education, an educated parent is one of the greatest indications that one will be very successful, so there may be add-on benefits from the back to education scheme. These might not affect the individual person but will have an impact on the education levels and attainment levels for their families.

Dr. Sweeney's statement was a very useful and nuanced analysis but I think it is interesting that it does, unfortunately, get simplified. We have heard previously in our hearings on this matter that education is not working and that is not what I heard from Dr. Sweeney today. I heard that there were concerns and a negative analysis about certain aspects of how the back to education scheme was working, but he pointed to what needs to be looked at, for example, the specific issue of the role that career guidance needs to play in ensuring people are being educated and directed towards the right kind of education and training opportunities. Again, the focus is on how it is done.

That brings us to the question of work first and train first. I honestly believe we have erred excessively on the side of work first. For many people, what they want is to move to a job but we have erred toward work first and it has become a default position, whereas I think it needs to be evaluated as to what is appropriate in each case. Again the quality of casework is important. I really appreciate that Dr. Sweeney has put a strong case for bringing train first back into focus. There are two key points there. One is progression. What we have heard is that many of these low-paid jobs are both demanding and, at times, can be dead end. A person can be in a job that is not leaving him or her much free space to develop his or her other hopes and dreams. When we talk about precarious work and insecure hours in particular, we see that sometimes these jobs and roles preclude the development of other opportunities. That is a question to consider. The key point is if we do have employment with in-work training, like apprenticeships, which I think was discussed by Senator Humphreys, the work itself has built-in progression and opportunity. I would appreciate Dr. Sweeney's thoughts on apprenticeships. That is something very concrete. A lot of the evidence is against the idea that simply by being in work one will automatically progress. The UK analysis of those who went into service level jobs in the fast food industry found that a very large number of them, especially women, tended to be in those same jobs ten years later and that they were not moving. I would like to hear Dr. Sweeney's thoughts on that.

In addition to progression there is the question of choice and of the importance of ensuring choice and guidance. I am not talking about choice in an abstract way but choice where there is real guidance in order that people are able, with that guidance and support that Dr. Sweeney mentioned, to choose a path forward that will really work. In Dr. Sweeney's experience, what are the differences between situations with choice or voluntary engagement and situations in which there is a feeling of compulsion? This comes into his very strong and important point on the question of re-entry and of bringing in other groups. This is an area around which there is strong concern. From my perspective, there are many women who became qualified adults and who fell out of the system but who have great skills and in many cases even have third level education and who would like to be activated back into the system. Dr. Sweeney mentioned three important things about how we do that and I would like him to elaborate.

Dr. Sweeney referred to services, ongoing education, training and guidance. Will he address flexibility? If we want to bring these new cohorts into employment and the labour market, do we need to re-examine time flexibility and, for example, the requirement for full-time availability for seeking employment? There are those with partial capacity and some with carer responsibilities. Do we need to develop and fine-tune the system to ensure it provides pathways into half-time labour market engagement, which we know is happening informally but could be happening in a more effective way formally? There is also the question of the voluntary invitation to these groups which in many cases are keen and hungry to be involved in the labour market.

I see Dr. Sweeney’s point about the resources being directed towards the long-term unemployed. However, I do not see why the live register must take precedence over these groups because we have an underemployment as well as an unemployment problem. Unless we are moving towards a punitive dynamic, there are many people, due to the restrictions I mentioned, who will not necessarily voluntarily sign on to the live register because they know they are not available full-time. We have had a strong focus on the live register, sometimes to the exclusion of the underemployment issues.