Dr. Mary Murphy:

I thank the committee for the invitation to appear here today. I wish it good luck with the work. We found this difficult as we had so much to say. Broadly, we want to draw attention to ongoing issues of capacity, competence and culture in the development of Intreo and in the implementation of Pathways to Work. We also want to draw attention to the absence of a more general employment service for the broader public. We are concerned about how a "work first" activation regime works alongside weak employment regulation to potentially pressure unemployed workers into a low-paid precarious employment.

The issues we really want to draw attention to today are: gender issues in what we see as a relatively careless activation regime which focuses on a male breadwinner; issues of procurement and employment services; issues around adult guidance; and issues in respect of conditionality. In respect of male breadwinner activation, labour activation rests on the nature of the social welfare regime, which is still predicated on the idea of full-time work. To be eligible for jobseeker's payments, one has to be available and genuinely seeking full-time work. That sets up a whole scenario of rules that make our activation regime highly unsuitable for women. For example, we force lone parents whose eldest child is 14 years old or older into being available for and genuinely seeking full-time work. That really does not fit with the reality of those women and often does not fit with what their parenting obligations and values are. Professor Jill Rubery says it is like being made "to 'work like a man' while still 'caring like a woman'" at the same time. We are forcing people into very unrealistic situations. At the same time, many women who might want to access employment do not pass the availability for full-time work condition, which means that they cannot access Intreo. That would often be the case in respect of qualified adults.

We then draw attention to the nature of the rules, which results in a gendered inequality in access to active labour market measures. When we do the analysis we find that men account for three quarters of the active labour market measures available and women only one quarter. That is not necessarily an intentional result of policy design but is an outcome of the rules which are being set by the regime.

We have included in our statement some background on the recent changes to the lone parent's payment and what has been happening in that regard. We draw attention particularly to the fact that there have been some welcome reversals to cuts introduced in previous budgets but those who are really standing outside and not receiving the benefits of those welcome reversals are those who were moved from the one-parent family payment to the full jobseeker's payment. They have not benefitted from any of the reversals to the cuts.

We signal that we have been very slow to make any progress in the area of qualified adults. There are a number of targets and objectives in Pathways to Work but we have missed the deadlines. The targets with regard to the reform agenda in respect of qualified adults are highly unambitious. We suggest two reforms, namely, using the jobseeker's transitional payment and abolishing the limitation rule. Why not look at an ambitious reform that would actually make a real difference? With regard to labour market shortages and labour market supply, this is an area where we want women to come back into the workforce. It seems that this is a logical time to look at the issue in a more ambitious way.

Before I hand over to Mr. Finn and Ms Whelan, I wish to make a very short statement. I wanted to say something about the procurement of employment services and the integrated delivery of social services. We have been using a payment-by-outcome system for JobPath. There is a policy intention to extend that to the local employment services, job clubs and the social inclusion and community activation programme, SICAP. We have serious issues with this. In our research we see that the extension of tendering and commissioning into these non-governmental organisations forces them to compete with one other to meet outcome targets and it is changing how they operate and co-operate with one other on the ground. It is making them compete with one other for the attention of recipients rather than figure out what the best service for those recipients is. There is a good word used in this regard - co-opetition. This means that they are still trying to co-operate but in the context of competition, which really changes the nature of the game in which they are involved and stops them being able to integrate services for the end benefit of the recipient. We really believe that not enough attention has been paid to the quality of what is happening on the ground when it comes to looking at these procurements and at paying by results.

There is a sense that we have little choice but to move into this procurement space because of European rules but we believe the application of social clauses offers more space for flexibility than we are using. We urge attention on this space because some decisions are now being made, about local employment services, LES, and jobs clubs in particular, which bring such services into the realm of payment by outcomes.